[Cites 16, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
State Of Kerala vs Muhammad Raziq on 11 February, 2026
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
Crl. M.C No.8516 of 2025
2026:KER:13319
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 22ND MAGHA, 1947
CRL.MC NO. 8516 OF 2025
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 11.07.2025 IN CRMC NO.1708 OF 2025 OF
DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT / RENT CONTROL APPELLATE
AUTHORITY, KOLLAM
PETITIONER/S:
STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN - 682031
BY ADV PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
RESPONDENT/S:
MUHAMMAD RAZIQ,
AGED 24 YEARS
S/O ABDUL RASHEED, KIDNGANAZHIKAM, KOLLURVILA
NAGAR-121, ERAVIPURAM P.O, KOLLAM, PIN - 691011
OTHER PRESENT:
PP.SRI.M.P.PRASANTH
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 11.02.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
Crl. M.C No.8516 of 2025
2
2026:KER:13319
C.S.DIAS, J.
----------------------------------------
Crl. M.C No.8516 of 2025
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 11th day of February, 2026
ORDER
Aggrieved by Annexure 1 order, enlarging the
respondent on bail, the State has filed the Criminal
Miscellaneous Case. The State's case is that the
respondent is the 3rd accused in Crime No. 562/2025
registered by the Eravipuram Police Station, as against
the accused persons for allegedly committing the
offences punishable under Sections 22(c), 29 and 27(A)
of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act
(Act, in short).
2. The specific case of prosecution is that the
accused nos. 1 to 3 had purchased MDMA from New
Delhi on the basis of financial assistance provided by the
2nd accused. Although the contraband involved in the
2026:KER:13319
case is of commercial quantity, the Court of Session,
Kollam, ('Bail Court', in short), without looking into the
rigour Section 37 of the Act, has enlarged the petitioner
on bail solely on the basis of finding that the respondent
was implicated as an accused in the crime based on the
confession statement made by a co-accused. Annexure 1
order is ex facie erroneous and unsustainable in law.
Hence, the Crl.M.C.
3. I have heard the learned Public Prosecutor.
Although the service of notice is complete on the 1st
respondent and there is no apperance for him.
4. The State's principal grievance is that, although
the respondent is alleged to have committed offences
under Sections 22(c), 29, and 27(A) of the Act, the Bail
Court has, without considering the rigour under Section
37 of the Act, enlarged the respondent on bail.
3. Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, regulates the grant
of bail in cases involving offences under the Act. It is
2026:KER:13319
profitable to extract Section 37, which reads as follows :-
"37. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable.--
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (2 of 1974),--
(a) every offence punishable under this Act shall be
cognizable;
(b) no person accused of an offence punishable for
offences under Section 19 or Section 24 or Section 27-
A and also for offences involving commercial quantity
shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless--
(i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity
to oppose the application for such release, and (ii)
where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application,
the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds
for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and
that he is not likely to commit any offence while on
bail.
(2) The limitations on granting of bail specified in
clause (b) of sub-section (1) are in addition to the
limitations under the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
(2 of 1974) or any other law for the time being in force
on granting of bail".
4. A plain reading of the above provision
demonstrates that a person accused of an offence under
Sections 19, 24 and 27-A of the Act and also involving
commercial quantity shall not be released on bail unless
the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds
to believe that the accused is not guilty and is not likely
to commit any offence while on bail. Therefore, the
power to grant bail to a person accused of committing an
offence under the Act is subject to provisions contained
2026:KER:13319
under Sec.439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and
parameters referred to above and on the accused
satisfying the twin conditions under Sec.37 of the Act.
5. While interpreting 'reasonable grounds'
prescribed under Section 37 of the Act, the Honourable
Supreme Court in Union of India v. Shiv Shanker
Kesari [(2007) 7 SCC 798] held as follows :-
"7. The expression used in Section 37(1)(b)(ii) is
"reasonable grounds". The expression means
something more than prima facie grounds. It connotes
substantial probable causes for believing that the
accused is not guilty of the offence charged and this
reasonable belief contemplated in turn points to
existence of such facts and circumstances as are
sufficient in themselves to justify recording of
satisfaction that the accused is not guilty of the offence
charged".
6. In State of Kerala and others v. Rajesh and
others [(2020) 12 SCC 122], the Honourable Supreme
Court has held as follows :-
"18. This Court has laid down broad parameters to be
followed while considering the application for bail moved by the
accused involved in the offences under the NDPS Act. In Union of India
v. Ram Samujh [Union of India v. Ram Samujh, (1999) 9 SCC 429 :
1999 SCC (Cri) 1522] , it has been elaborated as under :
"7. It is to be borne in mind that the aforesaid
legislative mandate is required to be adhered to and
followed. It should be borne in mind that in a murder
case, the accused commits murder of one or two
2026:KER:13319
persons, while those persons who are dealing in
narcotic drugs are instrumental in causing death or in
inflicting death-blow to a number of innocent young
victims, who are vulnerable; it causes deleterious
effects and a deadly impact on the society; they are a
hazard to the society; even if they are released
temporarily, in all probability, they would continue
their nefarious activities of trafficking and/or dealing
in intoxicants clandestinely. Reason may be large stake
and illegal profit involved. This Court, dealing with the
contention with regard to punishment under the NDPS
Act, has succinctly observed about the adverse effect
of such activities in Durand Didier v. State (UT of Goa)
[Durand Didier v. State (UT of Goa), (1990) 1 SCC 95 :
1990 SCC (Cri) 65] as under: (SCC p. 104, para 24).
'24. With deep concern, we may point out that the
organised activities of the underworld and the
clandestine smuggling of narcotic drugs and
psychotropic substances into this country and illegal
trafficking in such drugs and substances have led to
drug addiction among a sizeable section of the public
particularly the adolescents and students of both sexes
and the menace has assumed serious and alarming
proportions in the recent years. Therefore, in order to
effectively control and eradicate this proliferating and
booming devastating menace, causing deleterious
effects and deadly impact on the society as a whole,
Parliament in its wisdom, has made effective provisions
by introducing this Act 81 of 1985 specifying
mandatory minimum imprisonment and fine.'
8. To check the menace of dangerous drugs flooding
the market, Parliament has provided that the person
accused of offences under the NDPS Act should not be
released on bail during trial unless the mandatory
conditions provided in Section 37, namely, (i) there are
reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is
not guilty of such offence; and (ii) that he is not likely
to commit any offence while on bail are satisfied. The
High Court has not given any justifiable reason for not
abiding by the aforesaid mandate while ordering the
release of the respondent-accused on bail. Instead of
attempting to take a holistic view of the harmful
socioeconomic consequences and health hazards which
would accompany trafficking illegally in dangerous
drugs, the court should implement the law in the spirit
2026:KER:13319
with which Parliament, after due deliberation, has
amended."
19. The scheme of Section 37 reveals that the exercise of power
to grant bail is not only subject to the limitations contained under
Section 439 CrPC, but is also subject to the limitation placed by
Section 37 which commences with non obstante clause. The operative
part of the said section is in the negative form prescribing the
enlargement of bail to any person accused of commission of an offence
under the Act, unless twin conditions are satisfied. The first condition
is that the prosecution must be given an opportunity to oppose the
application; and the second, is that the court must be satisfied that
there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such
offence. If either of these two conditions is not satisfied, the ban for
granting bail operates.
20. The expression "reasonable grounds" means something more
than prima facie grounds. It contemplates substantial probable causes
for believing that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence. The
reasonable belief contemplated in the provision requires existence of
such facts and circumstances as are sufficient in themselves to justify
satisfaction that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence. In the
case on hand, the High Court seems to have completely overlooked the
underlying object of Section 37 that in addition to the limitations
provided under the CrPC, or any other law for the time being in force,
regulating the grant of bail, its liberal approach in the matter of bail
under the NDPS Act is indeed uncalled for.
21. We may further like to observe that the learned Single Judge
has failed to record a finding mandated under Section 37 of the NDPS
Act which is a sine qua non for granting bail to the accused under the
NDPS Act".
7. As observed in Rajesh's case (supra), in addition
to applying the rigour under Section 37 of the Act, the
courts are also bound to follow the general parameters
under Section 439 of the Code, while considering a bail
application.
8. In Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee
2026:KER:13319
and another [(2010) 14 SCC 496], the Honourable
Supreme Court has laid down the broad parameters for
Courts while dealing with applications for bail in the
following lines :
"9.xxx xxx xxx However, it is equally
incumbent upon the High Court to exercise its
discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in
compliance with the basic principles laid down in a
plethora of decisions of this Court on the point. It is
well settled that, among other circumstances, the
factors to be borne in mind while considering an
application for bail are: (i) whether there is any prima
facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused
had committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of
the accusation; (iii) severity of the punishment in the
event of conviction; (iv) danger of the accused
absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; (v) character,
behaviour, means, position and standing of the
accused; (vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated;
(vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being
influenced; and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being
thwarted by grant of bail".
9. In light of the law laid down in the aforesaid
decisions and considering the fact that the contraband
involved in the case is of commercial quantity, I am
satisfied that this is a fit case to invoke and exercise the
inherent powers of this Court under Section 528 of the
BNSS.
In the aforesaid circumstances, I allow the Crl.M.C,
2026:KER:13319
by setting aside Annexure 1 order and directing the Bail
Court to reconsider the bail application filed by the
respondent, keeping in mind the law referred to in the
aforesaid decisions. The Bail Court is directed to issue
notice to the learned counsel appearing for the
respondent before the said Court and reconsider Crl.M.C
no. 1708/2025 in accordance with law. The above
exercise shall be completed within one month from the
date of production of a copy of this order.
Sd/-
Srs/11.02.2026 C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
2026:KER:13319
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC NO. 8516 OF 2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure 1 CERTIFIED COPY OF CRL.MC NO. 1708/2025 ON
THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SESSIONS COURT,
KOLLAM
