The Kerala High Court highlighted the lethargy on the side of the prosecution for non-disposal of the matter within the time frame and granted bail to a man booked under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

The High Court was considering a third bail application of the petitioner, who is the 2nd accused in the Occurrence Report of Narcotics Control Bureau.

The Single Bench of Justice A. Badharudeen directed, “However, the learned Special Judge is directed to expedite the trial in this case within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, without fail and to report compliance.”

Advocate J.R.Prem Navaz represented the Petitioner while Special Public Prosecutor R. Vinu Raj represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

80 grams of MDMA was seized from the possession of the 1st accused after which he was arrested and had been detained in custody. Further investigation revealed the involvement of accused Nos. 2 to 7 in this crime. The Prosecution alleged that the 2nd accused had arranged a lodge for the 1st accused to collect the contraband which was seized from his possession and also he had paid rent for the said room. That apart, the petitioner also effected payment of money to the other accused, in the matter of purchase of the contraband. The prosecution alleged the commission of offences punishable under Sections 8(c) read with sections 22(c) and 29 of the NDPS Act and the petitioner was thereafter arrested.

Reasoning

The Bench took note of the fact that the prosecution's allegation as to the involvement of the petitioner in this crime by arranging lodge to the 1st accused and stayed along with him during the relevant period of purchase of the contraband, was supported by the evidence of PW4, the hotel manager. His involvement by entrusting money to the 1st accused to purchase the contraband was the other allegation. In such a case, it could not be held that the available evidence gave a clean chit to the petitioner similar to the case dealt by the Apex Court in Ankur Choudhary v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2024).

The Bench further explained that Section 37 of the NDPS Act is a special provision which would deal with the grant of bail to the accused persons where a commercial quantity of contraband was involved. Referring to the Apex Court’s judgment, it was noticed that in a case where trial could not be completed due to the absolute laches on the part of the prosecution, bail plea at the instance of the accused on the said ground is liable to be considered in suppression of the rider under Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act, in tune with Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Coming to the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the prosecution failed to incorporate all the necessary witnesses in the report and after having examined all the witnesses already cited the prosecution filed a petition under Section 311 of Cr.P.C to summon additional witnesses, without showing the purpose of their examination. The same was dismissed by the trial court holding so, as the prime ground. This Court also was not inclined to interfere with the finding of the Special Court, though in the said order, one more opportunity was provided to the prosecution to file a fresh petition under Section 311 of Cr.P.C with reasons in consideration of the gravity of the offences alleged to be committed.

“Thus it is evident that the lethargy on the side of the prosecution is the reason for non disposal of the matter as directed by this Court within the time frame and the petitioner in no way has played anything which would stand in the way of trial even on remote possibility or mere impossibility. In such a case, in consideration of the personal liberty of the petitioner guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India which overrides the effect of Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act, the petitioner, who has been in custody from 29.01.2022 is liable to be released on bail, the Bench held.

Allowing the Petition, the Bench enlarged the petitioner on bail on executing a bond for Rs 75,000 with two solvent sureties each, for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court concerned.

Cause Title: Shuaib.A.S. v. State of Kerala (Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:742)

Appearance:

Petitioner: Advocates J.R.prem Navaz, Muhammed Swadiq

Respondents: R.Vinu Raj, Special Public Prosecutor

Click here to read/download Order


Kerala High CourtJustice A BadharudeenBail ApplicationThe Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985

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.