The Kerala High Court dismissed the bail plea of a man for allegedly falsely implicating another woman in a drugs case and also suggested that the Parliament should consider if there is any inadequacy in the sentence in these types of cases of false accusations.

The High Court was considering a bail application of the Petitioner who was accused of falsely implicating another woman in a case pertaining to the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. Due to the false accusations, the woman had to remain in jail for about 72 days.

The Single Bench of Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan asserted, “The consequences of false implications can be devastating to the victims in such cases. Therefore the accused in such cases should be caught immediately for investigation, if necessary, and they should be produced before the court of law for trial expeditiously, if materials are there against them to face trial.”

Senior Advocate P. Vijayabhanu represented the Petitioner while Senior Public Prosecutor C.K. Suresh, represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

After receiving secret information, the Excise party reached the place of occurrence where they found a lady (original accused-Sheela Sunny) near a scooter who was opening the seat and taking a bag. The Excise Party intercepted the lady and after a search was conducted, a bag containing 0.160 grams of LSD stamps was seized. The lady was arrested and produced before the Jurisdictional Court.

When the investigation progressed, it was reported by the Chemical Examiner that the so-called contraband article seized did not contain Lysergic acid diethylamide(LSD). In view of the above, the original accused namely Sheela Sunny was deleted from the party array of accused. It was also alleged that there was some dispute between Sheela Sunny and her daughter-in-law. The sister of the daughter-in-law used the scooter of Sheela Sunny on the previous day and the contraband was concealed in the scooter by her. The information about the same was conveyed to the petitioner and the petitioner thereafter conveyed the same to the Investigating Officer.

It was alleged that the petitioner committed an offence under Section 58(2) of the NDPS Act and was also liable for the offence under Section 28 of the NDPS Act. The petitioner apprehended arrest in the above case and hence the bail application was filed before the High Court.

Reasoning

The Bench made it clear that for false implication of an innocent person in a case under Section 22(c) of the NDPS Act, the culprit who falsely implicated the innocent person can escape with an imprisonment of two years, whereas if the court finds guilty of the person who was falsely implicated, he has to face a minimum sentence of 10 years, which may extend to 20 years and also a minimum fine of Rs.1 lakh, which may extend to Rs.2 lakhs. The punishment should be fit to the crime and the sentence should reflect the severity of the offence.

Quoting the words of an American writer Mark Twain that “ a lie can travel halfway around the world, while the truth is still putting on its shoes”, the Bench said, “False accusations are the most malignant and venomous of all calumnies. Hence, sentences to be imposed by a court of law in such cases should be fair, proportionate and just.The punishment should fit the crime and the sentence should reflect the severity of the offence. If there is any inadequacy in the sentence in these type of cases, the Parliament should think seriously about the same. Registry will forward a copy of this order to the Union of India to do the needful in accordance with law.”

The Bench noticed that the informer gave information regarding the bag in which the contraband was concealed and the photos of the bag were also forwarded to the Investigating Officer. It further said, “Mere possession of LSD stamps itself is an offence. If the petitioner conspired with the suspects and obtained LSD stamps and concealed them in the scooter of Sheela Sunny, the investigating officer can charge them for Section 22(c) read with Section 29 of the NDPS Act also.”

Dismissing the Petitioner’s bail application and asking him to surrender before the Investigating Officer within seven days, the Bench held, “A poor lady is implicated in an NDPS Case because of some enmity and she continued in jail after registration of the case for about 72 days. Who will compensate her for this? I am of the considered opinion that the State Police Chief should take necessary steps to complete the investigation in this case, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.”

Cause Title: M.N. Narayana Das v. State Of Kerala (Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:4895)

Appearance:

Petitioner: Senior Advocate P. Vijayabhanu, Sruthy N. Bhat, P.M.Rafiq, Ajeesh K. Sasi, M. Revikrishnan, Nikita J. Mendez, Rahul Sunil, Sruthy K.K, Nanditha S., Sohail Ahammed Harris

Respondent: Senior Public Prosecutor C.K. Suresh

Click here to read/download Order


Kerala High CourtJustice PV KunhikrishnanNarcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances 1985ParliamentSentencing

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.