LI Network
Published on: January 13, 2024 at 10:58 IST
In a recent judgment rejecting bail for two individuals under the NDPS Act, the Kerala High Court clarified that Section 37 of the NDPS Act does not stipulate a specific timeframe for the commencement of trial, and the accused must satisfy both Section 37 and Section 439 of the Code to be eligible for bail.
Section 37 of the NDPS Act governs bail in cases involving offenses under the Act. The Court underscored that the accused’s release on bail is subject to the satisfaction of Section 37(b)(ii), requiring the Court to believe the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to commit offenses while on bail, especially when the Public Prosecutor opposes the application.
The single-judge bench, headed by Justice CS Dias, heard the bail plea of the accused, who were allegedly found in possession of methamphetamine during an arrest on the Iritty-Koottupuzha bridge while transporting it from Karnataka to Kerala.
The defense argued that the accused were falsely implicated, and since the investigation had concluded, with no criminal history, they were entitled to bail under the decision in Fasil v. State of Kerala (2023).
In response, the prosecution highlighted that Fasil’s case was specific to its facts and should not be a binding precedent for all bail applications, considering the stringent conditions under Section 37 and Supreme Court precedents.
The Court rejected the bail plea, emphasizing that the absence of a specific timeframe for trial commencement cannot be interpreted as a rule of thumb. It clarified that courts cannot add grounds absent in the statute and pointed to procedural formalities and extended investigation periods under Section 36A of the NDPS Act.
The Court concluded that the accused failed to meet the twin conditions of Section 37 and Section 439, highlighting the public interest over individual liberty when the accused had been in custody for fourteen months, and the investigation was completed.