BA 9834/23 & connected Bail Applications (Shabna Manoj; Shamsudheen Sait; Muhammed Ajmal) v. State of Kerala (Crime No.38/2021, Ernakulam Excise Range Office)
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- Mohammed Nias C.P.
- Judgment Date
- 2023-11-29
- Court Decision / Holding
- Bail granted to the petitioners (2nd, 3rd, and 8th accused) with conditions: separate bonds of Rs. 1,00,000 each with two solvent sureties; monthly appearances before the investigating officer; appearance at all trial postings; surrender of passports if applicable; no interference with the investigation; no involvement in other crimes; stay within the State of Kerala and India without court permission; and address/mobile number submissions. The bail is conditional and subject to further orders if violated.
- Final Disposition
- Bail granted with conditions to all three petitioners
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- Muhammed Ajmal
- Shabna Manoj
- Shamsudheen Sait
Respondents
- State of Kerala
- Excise Range Office, Ernakulam
- Excise Inspector, Ernakulam Range Office
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • Francis Assisi
- • Ajeesh S. Brite
- • T.D. Robin
- • Amrutha P.S
- • Nireesh Mathew
- • P. Mohamed Sabah
- • Libin Stanley
- • Saipooja
- • Sadik Ismayil
- • R. Gayathri
- • M. Mahin Hamza
- • Alwin Joseph
Counsels for Respondents
- • M. C. Ashi
- • T. V. Neema
Case Synopsis & Summary
These connected bail applications arise from Crime No. 38/2021 of the Ernakulam Excise Range Office, Ernakulam, in which 1.085 kg of MDMA was seized. The petitioners — Muhammed Ajmal (2nd accused, BA 9834/23), Shabna Manoj (3rd accused, BA 9428/23), and Shamsudheen Sait (8th accused, BA 9432/23) — seek regular bail under the NDPS Act (Sections 22(c) and 29). The prosecution opposes bail on grounds that the quantity involved and the accused’s roles warrant continuing custody. The petitioners contend that the second crime (36/2021) registered on the same premises and the subsequent 38/2021 seizure relate to the same contraband, and that the two separate crimes amount to fabrication by the Excise department; they also point out long custody, filing of a charge sheet on 15.10.2022, and that the case has not been numbered. The prosecution argues that the accused are connected with importing and handling substantial contraband, with multiple accused on bail in related cases. The court acknowledges delay and custody but relies on Supreme Court jurisprudence to balance liberty with investigative integrity. Citing Mohd. Muslim and Rabi Prakash, the judge grants bail to the petitioners with stringent conditions, including bonds, monthly reporting, trial postings, passport surrender, and prohibitions on leaving the state or India, subject to further orders, to secure a fair trial.
Provisions of Law Cited
Legal Doctrines & Maxims
- Prolonged incarceration militates against Article 21 of the Constitution
- Grant of bail on the ground of undue delay in trial may override Section 37 of the NDPS Act
- Conditional liberty should override the statutory embargo under Section 37 of the NDPS Act
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The petitioners contend that the MDMA seizure in Crime No. 38/2021 concerns the same premises and the same contraband as Crime No. 36/2021, registered earlier; they allege fabrication of a second case to harass them and highlight that the charge sheet was filed on 15.10.2022, the cases have not been numbered, and the petitioners have been in custody for over two years with no criminal antecedents other than Crime 36/2021. Relying on Supreme Court precedents on delay and liberty, they urge that bail be granted with standard conditions to ensure fair trial and prevent prejudice to investigations. They emphasize that prolonged detention risks Article 21 rights and that bail should not be withheld solely due to Sections 37 of the NDPS Act where justice requires otherwise.
Contentions of Respondents
The State argues against bail due to the quantity (1.085 kg MDMA) and the involvement of multiple accused, including an allegation that the 8th accused procured the contraband from Tamil Nadu. It cautions that release could hamper ongoing investigations and trial, and notes the case has not yet been numbered despite the charge sheet. The prosecution relies on NDPS provisions and the seriousness of the offence to oppose bail, underscoring the need to maintain the integrity of the investigation and trial.
Cited Precedents (2)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain v. State (NCT of Delhi) | 2023 SCC Online SC 352 | Positive | The apex court held that bail on the ground of undue delay in trial cannot be fettered by Section 37; this supports granting bail in cases where prolonged detention occurs. |
| Rabi Prakash v. The State of Odisha | SLP CrL No. 4169 of 2023 | Positive | Prolonged incarceration militates against Article 21 and conditional liberty should override the embargo under Section 37 of the NDPS Act; used to justify bail with conditions. |
Diagnostic Tool
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 BA 9834/23 & connected Bail Applications (Shabna Manoj; Shamsudheen Sait; Muhammed Ajmal) v. State of Kerala (Crime No.38/2021, Ernakulam Excise Range Office) and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.
Extracted Judgment Text
Exact text extracted from official judgment records.