High Court of KeralaSingle JudgePetition stands dismissed.

ABOOBACKER v. STATE OF KERALA

Case / Petition Number:B.A.No.1502 of 2023

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • A. BADHARUDEEN
Judgment Date
2023-03-15
Court Decision / Holding
Regular bail plea dismissed; bail application denied.
Final Disposition
Petition stands dismissed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • ABOOBACKER

Respondents

  • State of Kerala
  • Station House Officer, Tirur Police Station, Malappuram

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • V. Harikrishnan

Counsels for Respondents

  • • P G Manu, Senior Public Prosecutor

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a regular bail application under Section 439 CrPC by the second accused in Crime No.1071/2022 of Tirur Police Station, Malappuram. The prosecution alleges that on 31.10.2022, accused Nos. 1 and 2 were nabbed red-handed while transporting 190 grams of MDMA, a commercial quantity, in a car from Malappuram to Tirur, and the case under NDPS Act sections 22(c) and 29 was registered. The petitioner pleaded for regular bail citing ongoing investigation and custody since 31.10.2022. The Public Prosecutor opposed bail on the ground that, as the contraband constitutes a commercial quantity, Section 37 of the NDPS Act applies, rendering the accused non-bailable unless two conditions are satisfied: (i) there are reasonable grounds for believing he is not guilty, and (ii) he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. The court examined Section 37(1)(a) and (b) and, applying established jurisprudence (Union of India v. Shiv Shankar Kesari and other precedents), held that ‘reasonable grounds’ must be more than prima facie evidence and that the twin conjunctive conditions are sine qua non for bail in commercial-quantity NDPS cases. On evaluation of the materials and arguments, the court found no reasonable grounds for belief of innocence nor likelihood that the petitioner would abstain from committing a crime on bail, and thus declined regular bail. The petition is dismissed.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure CodeNDPS Act Section 22(c)NDPS Act Section 29NDPS Act Section 37(1)NDPS Act Section 19NDPS Act Section 24NDPS Act Section 27A

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Reasonable grounds doctrine (more than prima facie grounds) as explained in Union of India v. Shiv Shankar Kesari (2007) 7 SCC 798
  • Sine qua non in the context of Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act
  • Not a judgment of acquittal; Court’s inquiry is limited to whether there are reasonable grounds for belief of innocence and not to recording a finding of not guilty

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner pointed out progress of the investigation and custody since 31.10.2022 as grounds for regular bail, arguing that there is no immediate risk of flight or tampering with evidence, and that the contraband quantity, while described as commercial, does not automatically negate the possibility of bail where two statutory conditions under Section 37 are not demonstrably satisfied. The learned counsel emphasized that the investigation is ongoing and that there is no prima facie evidence proving guilt at this stage.

Contentions of Respondents

The Public Prosecutor opposed bail on the ground that the accused are involved with a commercial quantity of MDMA and, under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, bail can be granted only if the two conjunctive conditions (reasonable grounds of innocence and non-persistence in crime on bail) are satisfied. Given the quantity and the stage of investigation, the prosecution urged that regular bail should not be granted without satisfying these conditions.

Cited Precedents (10)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Union of India v. Shiv Shankar Kesari2007 (7) SCC 798PositiveThe court adopts the reasoning that ‘reasonable grounds’ must be more than prima facie grounds, requiring substantial probable cause for believing the accused is not guilty.
Superintendent, Narcotics Central Bureau v. R. PaulsamyAIR 2000 SC 3661PositiveUsed to support the reiteration of principles governing Section 37 NDPS bail in cases involving commercial quantity.
Customs, New Delhi v. Ahmadalieva NodiraAIR 2004 SC 3022PositiveCited for consistent application of the rider under Section 37(1) in NDPS cases.
Union of India v. Abdulla2004 (13) SCC 504PositivePart of the settled law reinforcing the stringent bail standard under the NDPS Act.
N.R. Mon v. Md. NasimuddinAIR 2008 SC 2576PositiveCited for principles on the interpretation of ‘reasonable grounds’ and bail with commercial quantities.
Union of India v. Rattan Malik2009 (2) SCC 624PositiveUsed to underscore the conjunctive requirements under Section 37(1)(b).
Union of India v. NiyazuddinAIR 2017 SC 3932PositiveReiterates the approach to Section 37 bail and ‘reasonable grounds’.
State of Kerala v. RajeshAIR 2020 SC 721PositiveSupportive precedent on NDPS bail considerations in Kerala context.
Union of India v. Jitentra Giri(reference in 2023 CriLJ 799)Mentioned OnlyLatest decision cited as authority but not applied in the opinion rendered.
2023 CriLJ 7992023 CriLJ 799Mentioned OnlyLatest decision noted for point of law but not followed or distinguished within this judgment.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against ABOOBACKER v. STATE OF KERALA and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN WEDNESDAY, THE 15[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 24TH PHALGUNA, 1944 BAIL APPL. NO. 1502 OF 2023** **CRIME NO.1071/2022 OF TIRUR POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2:** ABOOBACKER, AGED 26 YEARS, S/O ABDULLA, POCHENGAL HOUSE, VENGARA P.O, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676304. BY ADV V.HARIKRISHNAN ## **RESPONDENTS/STATE:** 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN – 682031. 2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER, 2. TIRUR POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM, PIN – 676101. P G MANU, SENIOR PUBLI PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08.03.2023, THE COURT ON 15.03.2023 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: B.A.No.1502 of 2023 2 _**A.BADHARUDEEN, J.**_ ================================ _B.A.No.1502 of 2023_ ================================ _Dated this the 15[th] day of March, 2023_ ## _**O R D E R**_ Regular bail plea at the instance of the 2[nd] accused in Crime No.1071/2022 is the crux of this petition filed under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the relevant documents. 3. The prosecution case is that at about 11.35 p.m on 31.10.2022, accused Nos.1 and 2 were found transporting 190 gram of MDMA for the purpose of sale in a car bearing Registration No.KL 13AE 2272 from Malappuram to Tirur and during transit, they were nabbed redhandedly. Pursuant to recovery and arrest, crime alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 22(c) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and B.A.No.1502 of 2023 3 Psychotropic Substances Act (for short `NDPS Act' hereinafter) was registered and the same is on investigation. 4. While pressing for regular bail for the petitioner/2nd accused, the learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out the progress of the investigation as well as the custody of the petitioner from 31.10.2022, as grounds to grant regular bail. 5. Whereas the learned Public Prosecutor zealously opposed the bail plea on the submission that the petitioner cannot be released on bail without satisfying the conditions provided under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, since the contraband involved is commercial quantity. 6. On perusal of the case diary, it is discernible that accused Nos.1 and 2 were nabbed redhandedly while they were transporting 190 grams of MDMA, admittedly commercial quantity and therefore, grant of bail shall be subject to the conditions provided in Section 37 of the NDPS Act. B.A.No.1502 of 2023 4 7. When the prosecution alleges possession of commercial quantity of contraband, the rigour under Section 37 of the NDPS Act would apply. Section 37 of the NDPS Act provides as under: _“37. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable.--_ _(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 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 27A 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 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail._ 8. On a perusal of Section 37(1)(a)(i), when the Public Prosecutor opposes bail application of a person involved in a crime, where commercial quantity of the contraband was seized, B.A.No.1502 of 2023 5 the Court can grant bail only after satisfying two conditions: viz; (1) There are ‘reasonable grounds’ for believing that the accused - is not guilty of such offences and (2) he will not commit any of fence while on bail. 9. The Apex Court considered the meaning of ‘reasonable grounds’ in the decision reported in (2007) 7 SCC 798, _**Union of**_ - _**India v. Shiv Shankar Kesari**_ and held that the expression ‘rea sonable grounds’ 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 reason able belief contemplated in turn points to existence of such facts - and circumstances as are sufficient in themselves to justify record ing of satisfaction that the accused is not guilty of the offence charged. 10. It was further held that the Court while considering the application for bail with reference to S.37 of the Act is not called upon to record a finding of not guilty. It is for the limited purpose essentially confined to the question of releasing the accused on B.A.No.1502 of 2023 6 bail that the Court is called upon to see if there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty and records its satisfaction about the existence of such grounds. But the Court has - not to consider the matter as if it is pronouncing a judgment of ac quittal and recording a finding of not guilty. 11. While considering the rider under Section 37 of the - NDPS Act, the same principles have been reiterated, in the deci sions reported in _**Superintendent, Narcotics Central Bureau v. R.Paulsamy**_ [2000 KHC 1549: AIR 2000 SC 3661: (2000) 9 SCC 549: 2001 SCC (Cri) 648: 2001 CrilLJ 117], _**Customs, New Delhi v. Ahmadalieva Nodira**_ [2004 KHC 505: AIR 2004 SC 3022:2004(3) SCC 549: 2004 SCC (Cri) 834: 2004 (110) DLT 300: 2004 CriLJ 1810: 2004 (166) ELT 302], _**Union of India v. Abdulla**_ [2004 KHC 1992: 2004(13) SCC 504: 2005 CriLJ 3115: 2005 All LJ 2334], _**N.R.Mon v. Md.Nasimuddin**_ [2008 KHC 6547: 2008(6) SCC 721: 2008(2) KLD 316: 2008(2) KLT 1022: 2008(9) SCALE 334: AIR 2008 SC 2576:2008 CriLJ 3491: 2008(3) SCC (Cri) 29], _**Union of India v. Rattan Malik**_ [2009 B.A.No.1502 of 2023 7 KHC 4151: 2009(2) SCC 624: 2009(2) KLT SN 83: 2009 (1) SCC (Cri) 831:2009 CriLJ 3042: 2009 (4) ALL LJ 627: 2009(2) SCALE 51], _**Union of India v. Niyazuddin**_ [2017 KHC 4465: _**-**_ AIR 2017 SC 3932: 2018 (13) SCC 738], _**State of Kerala v. Ra jesh**_ [2020(1) KHC 557: AIR 2020 SC 721: 2020(1) KLJ 664: 2020(2) KLT SN1 : ILR 2020(1), Ker.848]. The latest decision on . this point is [2023 CriLJ 799], _**Union of India v. Jitentra Giri**_ 12. On a plain reading of Section 37(1) (b) and 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act, within the ambit of the Settled law, it has to be understood that two ingredients shall be read conjunctively and not disjunctively. Therefore satisfaction of both conditions are _sine qua non_ for granting bail to an accused who alleged to have been committed the offences under Section 19 or Section 24 or - Section 27A and also for the offences involving commercial quan tity as provided under Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act. Unless Section 37 is not amended by the legislature in cases specifically referred under Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act, the Court could B.A.No.1502 of 2023 8 - not grant bail without recording satisfaction of the above twin in gredients. 13. On evaluation of the prosecution materials on par with the arguments tendered by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor, this Court cannot satisfy that - there are reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner is in - nocent and he will not commit any offence while on bail. There fore, application for regular bail at the instance of the petitioner must fail. Hence the petition stands dismissed. Sd/- ## _**(A. BADHARUDEEN, JUDGE)**_ _rtr/_ B.A.No.1502 of 2023 9 ## **APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 1502/2023** PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF SCREENSHOT OF THE POLICE OFFICIALS ENTERING THE LODGE IN GUDALLUR Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF 4. SCREENSHOT OF THE PETITIONER BEING ILLEGALLY TAKEN INTO CUSTODY AND TRANSFERRED INTO THE BOLERO JEEP Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF SCREENSHOT OF THE BOLERO JEEP REFUELING AT PETROL PUMP AT MALAPPURAM ON 31/10/2022 ANNEXURE A4 FREE COPY OF ORDER DATED 09/01/2023 IN CRIMINAL M.P NO 1763/2022 SPECIA COURT FOR SC/ST (POA) ACT& NDPS ACT CASES, MANJERI