Prolonged incarceration not sufficient for bail under NDPS Act, says court
In a significant ruling, the Kerala High Court has denied bail to an accused involved in a methamphetamine drug case, emphasizing that prolonged incarceration alone does not meet the stringent requirements for bail under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act). The judgment was delivered by Justice Kauser Edappagath, who presided over the bail application filed by the petitioner, Abid, in connection with Crime No.101/2024 of the Excise Range Office, Sulthan Bathery, Wayanad.
The petitioner, Abid, was apprehended with 48.032 grams and 31.45 grams of methamphetamine at the Muthanga Excise Check Post during a routine vehicle inspection. The prosecution alleged that Abid, along with co-accused, conspired to purchase the drug from another accused and facilitated the transaction through multiple bank transfers totaling `1,03,400/-. The charges against Abid are under Sections 22(c), 27A, and 29 of the NDPS Act, with the case currently pending at the Second Additional Sessions Court in Kalpetta, Wayanad District.
Abid's legal counsel argued for bail citing prolonged incarceration exceeding one and a half years, and the improbability of concluding the trial within a reasonable timeframe. However, the Senior Public Prosecutor countered, stressing the gravity of the offense and the insufficiency of prolonged detention as a sole ground for bail under the NDPS Act.
Justice Edappagath referred to previous Supreme Court rulings, asserting that while constitutional courts possess the authority to grant bail in case of constitutional rights violations, stringent statutory provisions under the NDPS Act cannot be overlooked. The court noted significant precedents, including the Supreme Court's decision in Narcotics Control Bureau v. Mohit Aggarwal, which underscored that neither the length of custody nor procedural delays suffice to grant bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
Moreover, the Kerala High Court observed that Abid failed to demonstrate circumstances that could substantiate his innocence concerning the charges. The presence of criminal antecedents further weighed against the bail application, as the court cited the applicant's involvement in another case under Section 22(c) of the NDPS Act.
In conclusion, the court reiterated that the statutory embargo under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, coupled with criminal antecedents, negates the possibility of bail despite prolonged detention. Consequently, the bail application was dismissed, reinforcing the judiciary's stance on upholding stringent provisions in narcotic-related offenses.
Bottom Line:
Bail under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act) involving commercial quantity - Prolonged incarceration does not automatically entitle the accused to bail if mandatory twin conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act remain unmet and the accused has criminal antecedents.
Statutory provision(s): Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 Section 22(c), Section 27A, Section 29, Constitution of India, 1950 Article 21, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 483
Abid v. State of Kerala, (Kerala) : Law Finder Doc id # 2849936
