Kerala High Court

Harikrishnan vs State Of Kerala on 24 September, 2025

Author: Bechu Kurian Thomas

Bench: Bechu Kurian Thomas

BAIL APPL. NO. 11152 OF 2025

                                  1




                                                        2025:KER:71208

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

   WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 2ND ASWINA, 1947

                   BAIL APPL. NO. 11152 OF 2025

   CRIME NO.689/2024 OF NEDUMBASSERY POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM

       AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 18.07.2025 IN Bail Appl.

             NO.8179 OF 2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NO.2:
           HARIKRISHNAN, AGED 29 YEARS
           S/O SURESH KUMAR, KOOVILLIL HOUSE,
           OORAKAM, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676519.

           BY ADVS. SRI.S.RAJEEV
           SRI.V.VINAY
           SRI.M.S.ANEER
           SHRI.SARATH K.P.
           SHRI.ANILKUMAR C.R.
           SHRI.K.S.KIRAN KRISHNAN
           SMT.DIPA V.
           SHRI.AKASH CHERIAN THOMAS
           SHRI.AZAD SUNIL
           SRI.RAAJESH S.SUBRAHMANIAN

RESPONDENT(S)/STATE:
     1     STATE OF KERALA
           REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
           HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031.
     2     STATION HOUSE OFFICER
           NEAR AIRPORT NEDUMBASSERY, ALUVA,
           ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683585.
           BY SRI. PRASANTH M.P., PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.09.2025,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
 BAIL APPL. NO. 11152 OF 2025

                                        2




                                                                        2025:KER:71208

                       BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
                 ......................................................
                          B.A. No.11152 of 2025
                   ...................................................
              Dated this the 24th day of September, 2025



                                     ORDER

This bail application is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik

Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS').

2. Petitioner is the second accused in Crime No.689/2024 of Nedumbassery

Police Station, Ernakulam; registered for the offences punishable under

Sections 20(b)(ii)(A), 22(c) and 8 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic

Substances Act, 1985 [for short, 'NDPS Act'].

3. The prosecution case is that, Sri. Azad-the first accused, was found in

possession of 360 grams of MDMA, 2 LSD Stamps and 420 grams of

ganja, and the second accused conspired to procure the contraband and

the accused thereby committed the offences alleged. The first accused

was arrested on 27.06.2024 while the petitioner's arrest was recorded on

08.07.2024.

4. Sri.S.Rajeev, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

petitioner was not produced within 24 hours before the nearest

Magistrate or the jurisdictional Magistrate, and therefore his arrest itself

is illegal. The learned counsel further submitted that petitioner was BAIL APPL. NO. 11152 OF 2025

2025:KER:71208

initially taken into custody on 07.07.2024, from Bengaluru, and without

producing him before the nearest Magistrate, he was transported to

Kerala and was subjected to a medical examination at the Taluk Hospital,

on 08.07.2024 at 6.20 am. It was also submitted that petitioner

continued to be in police custody, and his arrest was recorded only in the

evening of 08.07.2024, and he was produced before the Magistrate only

at 3 pm on 09.07.2024. The learned counsel submitted that, in the light

of the decision in Biswajit Mandal v. Inspector, Narcotic Control

Bureau [2025 (4) KLT 866], petitioner's custody having been retained by

the police without producing him before the nearest Magistrate within 24

hours from taking him into custody, is in violation of the custodial

mandate, and hence, he ought to be released. The learned counsel

further submitted that, even otherwise, considering the period of custody

undergone by the petitioner from 07.07.2024 and the absence of any

material to even implicate him as an accused, he ought to be released on

bail. It was also submitted that petitioner has no criminal antecedents as

well.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor relying upon the statement filed on behalf

of the respondent submitted that the accused has direct involvement in

the crime and that materials have been collected during investigation to

implicate him as an accused, and therefore, bail ought not to be granted.

It was further submitted that the final report has already been filed.

6. I have considered the rival contentions.

BAIL APPL. NO. 11152 OF 2025

2025:KER:71208

7. In Biswajit Mandal's case (supra), this Court has already held that the

period of twenty-four hours to produce an accused before the Magistrate

commences not when the actual time of arrest is recorded by the police,

but it runs from the time when the accused was effectively detained or

his liberty was curtailed. It was also held that the only permissible

exclusion is the time taken to produce him before the nearest Magistrate,

as provided under Article 22(2) of the Constitution of India.

8. With the aforesaid principle in mind, when the circumstances of the

instant case are considered, it is noticed from the remand report that

petitioner was apprehended from Bengaluru on 07.07.2024. He was

identified with the help of the first accused from Bengaluru, and was

brought to the Nedumbassery police station on 08.07.2024 and was

subjected to medical examination at 06.20 am and arrested at 6.20 pm

on 08.07.2024 and produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate on

09.07.2024. The relevant portion of the statement filed by the

Investigating Officer is extracted below:

"3. The 1st accused along with the said Hari Krishnan was taken to

the Taluk Hospital Angamaly for medical examination on 08.07.2024

and the Assistant Surgeon of Taluk Hospital Angamaly examined the

1st accused and the said Hari Krishnan and issued a certificate

showing that he was examined at 6.20 a.m on 08.07.2024.

Thereafter, the arrest of the said Hari Krishnan was recorded by the

investigating officer making him as a 2 nd accused on 08.07.2024 at BAIL APPL. NO. 11152 OF 2025

2025:KER:71208

6.20 p.m. Petitioner/A2 was again taken to Taluk Hospital Angamaly

for conducting medical examination on 08.07.2024 at 11.10 p.m and

the Assistant Surgeon of Taluk Hospital issued a certificate for the

same on 08.07.2024. After completing the other procedural

formalities petitioner herein A2 was produced before the Court after

preparing a remand report on 09.07.2024. On producing the

petitioner before the Court on 09.07.2024 he was remanded to

Judicial custody and was sent to Jail. He was handed over to Jail

authorities on 09.07.2024 at 6.40 p.m. "

9. From a reading of the above statement it can be noticed that at 6.20 am

on 08.07.2024, petitioner was produced before the Taluk Hospital and

thereafter his arrest was recorded at 6.20 p.m. on the said date.

10. Petitioner was apprehended from Bengaluru on 07.07.2024, and was

brought to the Police Station at Nedumbassery 08.07.2024. There are no

materials available to convince this Court that the petitioner was

produced before any nearest Magistrate at Bengaluru. There is no such

contention as well. In such circumstances, it has to be assumed that from

the time the petitioner was apprehended on 07.07.2024 at Bengaluru,

petitioner was under the custody of the police and was produced only at

3 pm on 09.07.2024 before the Jurisdictional Magistrate. In view of the

above, I am satisfied that the petitioner was detained in custody without

authority of law, beyond the period of 24 hours. Therefore, the continued

custody of the petitioner is not justified.

BAIL APPL. NO. 11152 OF 2025

2025:KER:71208

11. In the light of the above findings, the contention regarding non-

involvement of the petitioner in the crime and the applicability of rigour

under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, are left open.

12. Since petitioner has been in custody from 08.07.2024 onwards, I am of

the view that the continued detention is not required in the

circumstances of the case, more so since the investigation is over and

the final report has already been filed. Therefore, the petitioner is

entitled to be released on bail.

13. In the result, this application is allowed on the following conditions:-

(a) Petitioner shall be released on bail on him executing a

bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) with

two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the

satisfaction of the court having jurisdiction.