[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Shyamlal vs State Of Kerala on 8 April, 2026
Author: Kauser Edappagath
Bench: Kauser Edappagath
B.A.No.1785/2026
1
2026:KER:30686
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL 2026 / 18TH CHAITHRA, 1948
BAIL APPL. NO. 1785 OF 2026
CRIME NO.2108/2024 OF Kayamkulam Police Station, Alappuzha
PETITIONER/3RD ACCUSED:
SHYAMLAL, AGED 29 YEARS
S/O LAL SHYAMLAL NIVAS KANDALLOOR SOUTH KAYAMKULAM
ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 690535
BY ADVS. SHRI.NISSAM NAZZAR
SRI.V.VINAY
RESPONDENT/STATE:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT
OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
SRI. K.A. NOUSHAD, SR. PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
01.04.2026, THE COURT ON 8.4.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A.No.1785/2026
2
2026:KER:30686
ORDER
This application is filed under Section 483 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, BNSS),
seeking regular bail.
2. The applicant is the accused No.3 in Crime
No.2108/2024 of Kayamkulam Police Station, Alappuzha District.
The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 8(c) read with
22(c) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances
Act, 1985 (for short, the NDPS Act).
3. The prosecution case, in short, is that on
30.12.2024 at 9.25 am, in front of Amma Stores situated near
Kayamkulam KSRTC bus stand, a Child in Conflict with Law(CCL)
was found keeping 230 mg LSD stamps (20 Nos.) in the pocket of
his pants. On interrogation, it was revealed that the applicant
and the accused No.2 hatched a criminal conspiracy and
accordingly the applicant entrusted the contraband to the accused
No.2. Thereafter it was entrusted to the CCL by the accused No.2
with intention to trap one Mr.Sangeeth at Thiruvananthapuram in
contravention of the NDPS Act and Rules and thereby committed
the offences.
4. I have heard Sri. V. Vinay, the learned counsel
2026:KER:30686
for the applicant and Sri. K.A. Noushad, the learned Senior Public
Prosecutor. Perused the case diary.
5. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted
that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in
the present case. The counsel further submitted that no
contraband was seized from the applicant and he was arrayed as
an accused solely based on the confession statement of the
accused No.1 which is inadmissible. Apart from the said
contention, the learned counsel for the applicant submitted that
the grounds for arrest were not communicated to the applicant
and his relative in accordance with law and that the applicant was
not produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate within 24 hours
of his arrest. The learned counsel sought bail on those grounds
as well. On the other hand, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor
submitted that the alleged incident occurred as a part of the
intentional criminal acts of the applicant, and he is not entitled to
bail at this stage. The learned Prosecutor further submitted that
there is no infraction of Article 22(1) or 22(2) of the Constitution
of India inasmuch as the grounds of arrest were duly
communicated to the applicant and his relative and the applicant
was produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate well within 24
hours of his arrest.
2026:KER:30686
6. The applicant was remanded to judicial custody
on 30.11.2025. A perusal of the case diary would reveal that the
accusation against the applicant is very serious, and it prima facie
shows a premeditated criminal act on his part. Since the quantity
involved is commercial, the jurisdiction of this Court to grant bail
is circumscribed by the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
Bail can be granted in a case where there are reasonable grounds
for believing that the accused is not guilty of such an offence and
that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.
7. It is true that the contraband was not seized
from the possession of the applicant. However, the investigation
revealed the active involvement of the applicant in the crime.
After the arrest of the accused No.1, on interrogation he revealed
that the contraband was supplied to him by one Mr.Raghil from
Muttom at the instance of the applicant. The investigating agency
also examined the CDRs of the mobile numbers used by the
accused No.1, the applicant and the aforesaid Mr. Raghil and it
was found that there were frequent voice calls among them and
the applicant and Mr.Raghil were located in the same tower
location. It was also revealed from the investigation that it was
to falsely implicate one Mr. Sangeeth, the applicant procured the
contraband, handed over it to the accused No.2 who in turn
2026:KER:30686
handed over it to the accused No.1. The statement of Mr.
Sangeeth substantiates the said fact. The applicant has criminal
antecedents as well.
8. Having considered the submissions and after
having gone through the materials on record, I am afraid that
there are no substantial or probable causes for believing that the
applicant is not guilty of the offences charged. The applicant has
not been able to point out the existence of any such facts or
circumstances as are sufficient to justify recording a finding that
he is not guilty of the offences charged.
9. A perusal of the case records would show that
the grounds for arrest were duly communicated to the applicant
as well as to the relative. So far as the allegation that the
applicant was not produced before the Magistrate within 24 hours
is concerned, the case records would show that the applicant was
taken into custody on 29.11.2025 at 3 pm and his arrest was
recorded at 10 pm. He was produced before the jurisdictional
Magistrate only at 3.50 pm on the next day i.e., on 30.11.2025.
Thus even if the time of custody is reckoned as the time of arrest,
there is only a delay of 50 minutes. Admittedly, the applicant was
arrested from Palakkad and he was produced before the
Magistrate at Kayamkulam. The time for travel from the place of
2026:KER:30686
arrest to the place of the court where the accused is produced
can be excluded. Thus, when the travel time is excluded, the
production is well within 24 hours of his arrest.
Considering the nature of the crime, the gravity of the
offence, the complicity of the applicant in it, and the facts and
circumstances mentioned above, I am of the view that the
applicant cannot be released on bail at this stage. The bail
application, accordingly, is dismissed.
Sd/-
DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
JUDGE
kp
2026:KER:30686
APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. NO. 1785 OF 2026
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure 1 THE TRUE COPY OF FIR IN CRIME 2108/2024
OF KAYAMKULAM POLICE STATION
Annexure 2 A TRUE COPY OF REMAND ORDER DATED 30-11-
Annexure 3 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED
THROUGH EMAIL ON 29.11.2025
Annexure 4 A TRUE COPY OF THE SWORN STATEMENT GIVEN
BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE MAGISTRATE
Annexure 5 A TRUE COPY OF REMAND APPLICATION DATED
30-11-2025
Annexure 6 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER
SECTION 47 OF THE BNSS
Annexure 7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER
SECTION 48 OF THE BNSS
Annexure 8 A TRUE COPY OF CUSTODY MEMO DATED 29-11-
Annexure 9 A TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT DATED
23.04.2025
Annexure 10 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
13/03/2026 IN CRL. MP NO. 03/2026
