High Court Dismisses Bail Application In Landmark Narcotics Case, Emphasizing Stringent Parameters For Offenses Involving Commercial Quantities

Case Title:

Jasser S.M. v. State of Kerala & Anr

Date of Order:

8^th January 2024

Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice C.S. Dias

Parties:

Petitioner: 1. Jaseer S.M.

Respondent: 1. The State of Kerala

                     2. The Station House Office, Iritty Police Station

SUBJECT:
The case presented before the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala (hereinafter referred to as ‘the High Court’ or ‘the Court’) involves a narcotics offense, specifically the possession of a commercial quantity of methamphetamine. The first accused, Jaseer S.M., filed a bail application seeking release from custody. The case is registered under section 22(c) of the NDPS Act and the prosecution alleges that Jaseer was found transporting over 250 grams of methamphetamine from Karnataka to Kerala. The Court’s consideration revolves around the seriousness of the offense, adherence to legal provisions, and the application of section 37 of the Act in determining eligibility for bail.

IMPORTANT PROVISIONS:
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC):

• Section 439

The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act):

• Section 22
• Section 37
• Section 19
• Section 24
• Section 27-A
• Section 36-A

OVERVIEW:

• Jaseer S.M. (Petitioner) and another individual were allegedly found in possession of 298.10 grams of methamphetamine on the Iritty-Koottupuzha bridge.
• The petitioner was arrested on the spot, on 7^th December 2022.
• A case is registered against the Petitioner and another accused under Section 22(c) of the NDPS Act, which pertains to contraventions related to possession, sale, purchase, transport, and other activities involving narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances.
• The petitioner filed a bail application under Section 439 of the CrPC, seeking release fro custody while awaiting trial.
• The case is now being heard in Court.

ISSUES RAISED:

• Whether there are sufficient grounds to believe the accused’s innocence?

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE PETITIONER:

• Petitioner asserted innocence, claiming he had been falsely implicated in the narcotics case.
• The charges against the petitioner are unfounded, and he is not guilty of the alleged offense.
• The petitioner stressed that he had no criminal history or previous involvement in illegal activities and the absence of a criminal record was evidence of the petitioner’s good character and credibility.
• The petitioner had been in custody since 7^th December 2022, and the duration of his incarceration suggests that prolonged custody without trial commencement warrants a release.
• The Investigation of the case is complete and therefore should not be an obstacle in the petitioner’s bail application.
• The case of Fasil v. State of Kerala was cited to showcase that the Supreme Court had granted bail under similar circumstances.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT:

• The offenses under which the petitioner was charged were extremely serious, which is highlighted by the quantity of contraband seized.
• Section 37 of the NDPS Act which regulates the grant of bail in cases involving offenses under the Act, lays down that the provisions of the section must be met to secure a release.
• The decision by the Supreme Court in the Fasil case (supra) was rendered in unique circumstances and could not be considered as a binding precedent in all bail applications.

JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS:

• The court highlighted the importance of Section 37 of the Act by citing its specific conditions for the release of bail of individuals accused of offenses under the Act, particularly those involving commercial quantities of narcotics.
• It reiterated that an accused facing charges under the NDPS Act can be granted bail only when specific conditions outlined in Section 37 are met.
• The Court stated that the conditions necessitate the Court’s satisfaction that there are ‘reasonable grounds’ to believe in the accused’s innocence and that there is no likelihood of them committing further offenses while on bail.
• The Court, referring to the decisions by the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Shiv Shanker Kesari and Union of India v. Mohd. Nawaz Khan, interpreted the expression ‘reasonable grounds’ in Section 37.
• The Court expressed reservations about applying the principles of Fasil’s case universally, emphasizing that it was rendered in unique circumstances.
• It established the rule of thumb or a principle of universal application that overlooks statutory procedure and timeframes.
• The High Court concluded by asserting that when individual liberty is weighed against the larger public interest, the latter must prevail over the former.
• The Court stated that there was a need for a strict criterion for granting bail under the Act to effectively address the severe repercussions related to drug-related offenses.
• The bail application was rejected on the basis that there were insufficient grounds to believe in the Petitioner’s innocence.

CONCLUSION:

The High Court of Kerala concluded that the stringent parameters outlined in section 37 of the NDPS Act. The Court highlighted the potential severity of the punishment and the prosecution’s apprehension regarding the accused’s flight risk. While acknowledging the precedent in Fasil’s case, the Court refused to universally apply its principles and underscored the need to adhere to statutory procedures and timelines. Ultimately, the High Court rejected the bail plea, stating that, at this juncture, there were insufficient grounds to presume the petitioner’s innocence. The Court underscored the prioritization of public interest over individual liberty, particularly in cases related to drug offenses.