On bail applications for accused involved in a large heroin seizure aboard boats, Kerala High Court held that commercial quantity triggers Section 37 restrictions. Lacking reasonable grounds to believe accused were innocent, the court dismissed the bail pleas.
Bail applications of all petitioners rejected; accused to remain in custody pending trial.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
THURSDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023 / 27TH MAGHA, 1944
BAIL APPL. NO. 426 OF 2023
N.D.P.S NO.1140/2022 IN O.R.NO.2/2022 OF DISTRICT COURT &
SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM
[SPECIAL COURT UNDER N.D.P.S ACT, ERNAKULAM]
O.R.NO.2/2022 OF DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE,
COCHIN
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.6, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18 &
19:
AGED 32 YEARS
S/O SAKARIAS, H.H/NO.29/122 B2, KAMARAJ SALAI, COLACHEL, KALKULAM, KANNYAKUMARI DISTRICT, THAMIL NADU, PIN- 629251(ACCUSED NO.6).
B.A.Nos.426 & 499 of 2023 2
6 PRITHYU, AGED 27 YEARS S/O PANIYADIMAI, ST. NICHOLA'S STREET, CHINNATHURAI, THOTHOOR, KANYAKUMARI, PIN-629176, (ACCUSED NO.4). 7 PRAJIN.F, AGED 31 YEARS S/O FRANCIES, ST.NICHOLA'S STREET, CHINNATHURAI, THOTHOOR, KANYAKUMARI, PIN-629176, (ACCUSED NO.15). 8 VINEESH RAJ, AGED 22 YEARS S/O MARIYADAS, STEPHEN TEXTILES, KATTUVILAI, MARTHANDAM, VILAVOOR CODE, KANYAKUMARI, PIN629165, NOW RESIDING AT THENGAPATTANAM, PANAMKALMUKKU, PIN-629173 (ACCUSED NO.18). 9 FRANCIS, AGED 56 YEARS S/O DASAN, OSAVILA COLONEY, KOTTAPURAM.(P.O), VIZHINJAM, TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT, KERALA, PIN695521, (ACCUSED NO.19).
BY ADVS. LAL K.JOSEPH SURESH SUKUMAR KOYA ARAFA MIRAGE ANZIL SALIM
RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:
1 UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL, DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE, COCHIN ZONAL UNIT, KOCHI-682025.
2 THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE, COCHIN ZONAL UNIT, VILAKUNNEL HOUSE, DOOR NO. 40/552, KAITHOTH ROAD, PALARIVATTOM, KOCHI-682025.
BY MANU S., DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA SRI P.G.MANU (SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR)
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06.02.2023 ALONG WITH B.A.NO.499/2023, THE COURT ON 16.02.2023 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A.Nos.426 & 499 of 2023 3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
THURSDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023 / 27TH MAGHA, 1944 BAIL APPL. NO. 499 OF 2023
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENTSC 1140/2022 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
1 U.ARABATH ALI, AGED 37 YEARS S/O.UMAR JAHUBAR,355,THARHA STREET,JAGADHAPATTINAM POST MANAMELKUDI TALUK KEELAMANJAIKUDI, PUDUKKOTTAI TAMILNADU, PIN – 614619.
2 A.FAISAL RAHMAN, AGED 32 YEARS S/O.ABDUL BARAKATH, 325,PALLIVASAL STREET JEGADHAPATTINAM POST MANAMELKUDI TALUK KEELAMANJAIKUDI PUDUKKOTTAI TAMILNADU, PIN - 614619 BY ADV SHYAM KUMAR M.P
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR INTELLIGENCE OFFICER – DRI, DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE COCHIN UNIT, PIN – 682028.
BY ADV S.MANU
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06.02.2023 ALONG WITH B.A.NO.426/2023, THE COURT ON 16.02.2023 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A.Nos.426 & 499 of 2023 4
A.BADHARUDEEN, J.
================================
B.A.Nos.426 of 2023
and
B.A.No.499 of 2023
================================
Dated this the 16th day of February, 2023
O R D E R
B.A.No.426/2023 is at the instance of accused 6, 10 to 15, 18 and 19 in N.D.P.S.No.1140/2022 in O.R.No.2/2022 pending before the Special Court under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, Ernakulam (hereinafter referred to as `NDPS Act' for short). Accused 22 and 23 in the same crime are the petitioners in B.A.No.499/2023. All the petitioners seek
regular bail.
2 . Heard the learned counsel for the respective petitioners as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.
3 . Perused the case records including the complaint filed
by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence Zonal Unit, Cochin
B.A.Nos.426 & 499 of 2023 5
arising out of O.R.2/22 of DRI, Kochi. In this case, the
prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 21, 23, 25, 27(A), 28 and 29 r/w 8(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as the `NDPS Act' for short). The prosecution allegation is that on 18.05.2022 officers of the Directorate of Revenue Vigilance Cochin seized 217.525 kg. of white colour substances on suspicion that the same is Heroin from 2 boats by name “Little Jesus” and “Prince”, registered in Tamil Nadu. Accordingly, accused Nos.1 to 20 were arrested from the said boats along with the contraband and subsequently other accused including accused Nos.22 and 23 were also incorporated.
4 . I shall refer the parties by referring their lawyers. 5 . Advocate Lal K.Joseph, who appeared for the petitioners in B.A.No.426/2023, would submit that the petitioners
are innocent. According to him, the petitioners are fishermen by profession and they were brought into as employees/fishermen of
B.A.Nos.426 & 499 of 2023 6
the boats by names; “Little Jesus” and “Prince”, controlled by accused Nos.1 to 5 and 21 to 23. Accordingly, they went for fishing at high sea. The petitioners did not have any knowledge about the contraband, its transport or recovery. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners were offered with Rs.2,500/- per day as bata and also share in the price of fish. Accordingly, being employees in the above boats, they were at the high sea for a period of two weeks more for fishing and on 18.05.2022 the Revenue Intelligence intercepted the ship and contraband was seized. According to Advocate Lal K.Joseph, they started fishing on 29.07.2017 after filling fuel on 27.4.2017 for the said purpose, as evident from the bills showing purchase of fuel, produced as Annexures-A4 and A5 in B.A.426/2023. Therefore, Advocate Lal K.Joseph would submit that his clients' complicity in this matter is without support of any materials and as such they are liable to be released on bail though the contraband would come to commercial quantity, where the rider
B.A.Nos.426 & 499 of 2023 7
under Section 37 of the NDPS Act will be applicable.
6 . Whereas Advocate Shyam Kumar, who appeared for accused 22 and 23, argued at length to convince that accused 22 and 23 have no role in this occurrence. According to him, though they were arrayed as accused in this case on the allegation that they are the owners of the above boats, the prosecution miserably failed to collect sufficient documents to show the complicity of accused Nos.22 and 23 in this matter, either as owners of the boats or as men associated with the contraband. He also argued that the confession statements recorded as that of Chrispen and as that of accused Nos.22 and 23 were given much emphasis by the prosecution to hold that they are the owners of the ships by name “Little Jesus” and “Prince”. He also pointed out that, in fact, the confession statement of Chrispen was recorded on 20.05.2022 and even prior to that, i.e on 19.05.2022 the petitioners were summoned to appear before the Revenue Intelligence Officer, DRI Unit Tuticorin and Trichi. Therefore, even without support
B.A.Nos.426 & 499 of 2023 8
of confession statements by anybody, accused Nos.22 and 23 were implicated as accused with ulterior motives. Therefore, they are liable to be released on bail. He also pointed out that, even otherwise statements of accused Nos.22 and 23 as well as the coaccused, recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act are the sole basis on which the prosecution alleges commission of offences by the petitioners and the same cannot be considered.
7 . In support of this contention, the learned counsel for the petitioners has given emphasis to the decision of the Apex Court in [(2021) 4 SCC 1], Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu , to contend that statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act will remain inadmissible in the trial of an offence under the NDPS Act and therefore the implication of accused 22 and 23 in this crime merely based on the confession statements cannot be justified and, therefore, accused 22 and 23, who are innocent persons, are liable to be released on bail.
8. Per contra, the learned Deputy Solicitor General of India
B.A.Nos.426 & 499 of 2023 9
(`DSGI' for short hereinafter) would submit that there are sufficient materials in this case to see the involvement of the petitioners herein in this crime. In so far as the involvement of accused 22 and 23, who got arrayed as accused subsequently on the allegation that they are the owners and men of the boats “Little Jesus” and “Prince”, the learned DSGI would submit that apart from the confession statement given by Chrispen as well as accused 22 and 25, one Guna, an independent witness who mediated the sale of the above 2 boats in favour of accused Nos.22 and 23, and witnessed payment of entire sale price to the above boats by accused 22 and 23 to Chrispen, had given statement in this regard and the said statement is the main plank on which the prosecution alleges that the above boats were purchased by accused Nos.22 and 23 from Chrispen and they are the owners of the two boats at the time of recovery of the contraband. The learned DSGI also submitted that on search and inspection of the mobile phone of Guna, the draft sale agreement in that line also was found and
B.A.Nos.426 & 499 of 2023 10
recovered by the Investigating Agency.
9. Regarding the involvement of the petitioners in B.A.No.426/2023, the learned DSGI also argued that they could not be held as persons inside the boats without knowledge of transport of the contraband. In this connection, the learned DSGI argued that they had started journey in the boats on 29.04.2022 and after staying at the high sea for a substantive long period till 18.05.2022, they reached Kochi and on doubt they were intercepted, and large quantity of Heroin was seized. Further at the time of recovery, the fish found in the two boats were negligible. The said aspect also shows their knowledge as to transport of Heroin in the above boats. Since the petitioners in B.A.No.426/2023 were arrested from inside the boats while transporting the contraband, their complicity is well made out in so far as the offences alleged to be committed, particularly under Section 21 of the NDPS Act. The learned DSGI placed a 3 Bench decision of the Apex Court reported in [Manu/SC/0899/2022],
B.A.Nos.426 & 499 of 2023 11
Narcotics Control Bureau v. Mohit Aggarwal to contend that even though it was held in Tofan Singh 's case (supra) by majority view that a confession statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act is inadmissible, the disclosure made by an accused which led the NCB team to arrive at and raid the godown of the co-accused which resulted in the recovery is admissible in evidence. Further it is submitted that statements recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act have some sort of relevance during the crime stage. In this connection, the learned counsel given emphasis to para.16 of the above judgment which is as under:
“16. Coming back to the facts of the instant case, the learned Single Judge of the High Court cannot be faulted for holding that the Appellant-NCB could not have relied on the confessional statements of the Respondent and the other coAccused recorded Under Section 67 of the NDPS Act in the light of law laid down by a Three Judges Bench of this Court in Tofan Singh (supra), wherein as per the majority decision, a confessional statement recorded Under Section 67 of the NDPS Act has been held to be inadmissible in the trial of an offence under the NDPS Act. Therefore, the admissions made by the Respondent while in custody to the effect that he had
B.A.Nos.426 & 499 of 2023 12
illegally traded in narcotic drugs, will have to be kept aside. However, this was not the only material that the AppellantNCB had relied on to oppose the bail application filed by the Respondent. The Appellant-NCB had specifically stated that it was the disclosures made by the Respondent that had led the NCB team to arrive at and raid the godown of the coAccused, Promod Jaipuria which resulted in the recovery of a large haul of different psychotropic substances in the form of tablets, injections and syrups. Counsel for the Appellant-NCB had also pointed out that it was the Respondent who had disclosed the address and location of the co-Accused, Promod Jaipuria who was arrested later on and the CDR details of the mobile phones of all co-Accused including the Respondent herein showed that they were in touch with each other.”
10. Whereas Advocate Shyam Kumar given emphasis to
the decision of the Apex Court reported in Crl.A.No.1897/2019 to contend that apart from the inadmissible nature of statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, when the prosecution records do not justify the involvement of accused 22 and 23 in this case, rider under Section 37 would not apply and they are liable to be released on bail. He has also placed decisions of the Apex Court reported in [(2011) 1 SCC 609],
B.A.Nos.426 & 499 of 2023 13
Vijaysinh Chandubha Jadeja v. State of Gujarat , judgment in Criminal Appeal No.1079 of 2002 reported in [ABC 2012 (II) 70 SC], Narcotics Central Bureau v. Sukh Dev Raj Sodhi ; [(2021) 1 SCC (Cri) 181], Gangadhar Alias Gangaram v. State of Madhya Pradesh , judgment in Criminal Appeal No.421 of 2021 and Order in Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No.5703/2021 and (Crl) No.8919/2021, in support of this contention.
11. In this case, the statement given by Guna is very vital. According to Guna (LW53), he had mediated the sale of 2 boats, viz. “Little Jesus” and “Prince” owned by Chrispen and thereafter Chrispen had sold the above ships to Mr.Arabath Ali. Para.99 of the complaint is relevant in this regard. The statement of Mr.Guna (LW53) is narrated as follows:
“99. Mr.Guna[LW-53] S/o Kupparethinam, aged 35 years in his voluntary statement dated 21.10.2022 recorded under Section 67 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 interalia stated that his address is Chellavenanthel street, Opposite of Devarsanga – office, Jegathapattinam(P.O), Manalmelkudi Taluk,
B.A.Nos.426 & 499 of 2023 14
PuthukottaiDist; that he can read, write and understand Tamil; that he can understand Malayalam little bit and his Mobile Number is 9025425306.
99.1. He further stated that he had nothing to do with the seizure of Heroin on 20.05.2022 and that he and his friend “Hari” were the middlemen for sale of “Little Jesus” boat owned by Mr.Chrispen; that he came to know from Hari that Mr.Arabath was looking for a boat and the same was informed to him by one Faizal; that they were also offered half the catch of fish and double the wages if they were willing to go for fishing; that they identified a seller Mr.Chrispen and he, Hari, Faisal, Arabath, his brother Ebrahim, Chrispen and one of Chrispen's men met at Thankam Lodge on 03.02.2022 to finalise the deal; that the sale was fixed at Rupees 55 lakhs; that Arabath handed over Rs.25 lakhs as advance in front of them and an agreement was made on white paper by the person who accompanied Chrispen; that he is submitting the copy of the said agreement; that he denied Arabath's offer to register the boat in his name.
99.2. He further stated that after 10 days Arabath handed over to Chrispen Rs.30 lakhs at Nagercoil in Madurai route in presence of him and Hari; that Chrispen paid them 5 lakhs as commission; that later they came to know through Faisal that the boat was regisrtered to a person named Mr.Abdulla, a native of Kottaipattinam; that
B.A.Nos.426 & 499 of 2023 15
Faizal is know to him through his friend Hari only; that he did not know anything about the whereabouts of Mr.Abdulla; that he was present in the “Little Jesus” boat when the same was intercepted by Navy.”
99.3. He further stated that on reaching Cochin Hari tried to contact Ebrahim but he did not respond; that he called Faisal and he did not pick the call; that he contacted Chrispen and informed the details; the next day Chrispen came to Cochin and handed over Rs.5000; that thereafter they did not have any contact with Chrispen; that using the satellite phone he had called his wife, Lakshmi to her number 8870462451 and Hari contacted his wife, Vigneswari and Sayed Ebrahim to his number 9942735912 to inform that they were returning; that he had contacted Arabath, Faisal, Sayed Ebrahim and Chrispen from his mobile number 9025425306; that Faisal was contacted in his number 919894436676, Chrispen in his number 9489504745 and Sayed Ebrahim in his number 9942735912; that from the photographs, he identified Faisal, Arabath and Chrispen.”
12. Thus the role of accused Nos.22 and 23 as the men
behind the transport of contraband after purchase of the boats from Chrispen is well established prima facie , by the statements of Sri Guna, an independent witness, who mediated the sale. That
B.A.Nos.426 & 499 of 2023 16
apart, it is submitted by the learned DSGI that the call details collected by the Investigating agency emphatically proved close relation in between accused 22, 23, 1, 2 and 3 during the period of sale of boats and the period of recovery.
13. Though it is argued by Advocate Lal K.Joseph that the petitioners in B.A.No.426/2023, who are fishermen, as per their confession statements recorded under Section 67 of the Evidence Act, reiterated their innocence in the matter of transport of contraband, the prosecution agency was not inclined to exclude them, the confession statements of the petitioners alone in this regard are quite insufficient to hold their innocence at this stage, since they were nabbed from the boats while transporting contraband. Therefore, this Court cannot hold prima facie that they are absolutely innocent, at this stage. But they can establish the same during trial.
14. Hence, when the prosecution alleges possession of commercial quantity of contraband, the rider under Section 37 of the NDPS Act would apply. Section 37 of the NDPS Act provides
B.A.Nos.426 & 499 of 2023 17
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.
15. 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,
the Court can grant bail only after satisfying two conditions: viz;
B.A.Nos.426 & 499 of 2023 18
(1) There are ‘reasonable grounds’ for believing that the accused is not guilty of such offences and (2) he will not commit any offence while on bail.
16. 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 ‘reasonable 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 reasonable belief contemplated in turn points to existence of such facts and circumstances as are sufficient in themselves to justify recording of satisfaction that the accused is not guilty of the offence charged.
17. 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.Nos.426 & 499 of 2023 19
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 acquittal and recording a finding of not guilty.
18. While considering the rider under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the same principles have been reiterated, in the decisions 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:
B.A.Nos.426 & 499 of 2023 20
2008(3) SCC (Cri) 29], Union of India v. Rattan Malik [2009 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. Rajesh [2020(1) KHC 557: AIR 2020 SC 721: 2020(1) KLJ 664: 2020(2) KLT SN1 : ILR 2020(1), Ker.848]
19. 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 quantity 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
B.A.Nos.426 & 499 of 2023 21
Court could not grant bail without recording satisfaction of the above twin ingredients.
20. On evaluation of the prosecution materials on par with the arguments tendered by the respective counsel for the petitioners and the learned DSGI, this Court cannot satisfy that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioners are innocent and they will not commit any offence while on bail. Therefore applications for regular bail at the instance of the petitioners must fail.
Hence these petitions stand dismissed.
Sd/-
(A. BADHARUDEEN, JUDGE)
rtr/
B.A.Nos.426 & 499 of 2023 22
APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 426/2023
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES
| Annexure A1 | TRUE COPY OF THE DISCHARGE SUMMARY OF NIMS HEART FOUNDATION, NEYYATTINKARA DATED 30/4/2016. |
|---|---|
| Annexure A2 | TRUE COPY OF THE TREATMENT DETAILS DATED 6/12/2022 FROM INTERNATIONAL CANCER CENTRE NEYYOOR. |
| Annexure A3 | TRUE COPY OF THE OCCURRENCE REPORT DATED 21/5/2022 SUBMITTED BY THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, DRI, COCHIN. |
| Annexure A4 | TRUE COPY OF THE PURCHASE BILL DATED 27-4-2022 ISSUED IN THE NAME OF LITTLE JESUS. |
| Annexure A5 | TRUE COPY OF THE PURCHASE BILL DATED 27-4-2022 ISSUED IN THE NAME OF PRINCE BOAT. |
| Annexure A6 | TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 1/7/2022 IN CRL.M.C.1375/2022 OF THE SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM. |
| Annexure A7 | TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19/8/2022 IN CRL.M.C 1730/2022 OF THE SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM. |
| Annexure A8 | TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 6/10/2022 IN CRL.M.C. 2184/2022 OF THE SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM. |
| Annexure A9 | TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 3/11/2022 IN CRL.M.C 2452/2022 OF THE SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM. |
| Annexure A10 | TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23/11/2022 IN CRL.M.C 2645/2022 OF THE SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM. |
B.A.Nos.426 & 499 of 2023 23
APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 499/2023
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES Annexure A1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER IN CRL MC 1880/2022 AND CRL MC 1882/2022 OF THE SESSION COURT ERNAKULAM DATED 19/9/2022
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail can be granted under Section 37 of the NDPS Act when commercial quantity of heroin was seized and the Public Prosecutor opposed the application.
Whether the confession statements recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act can exclude the negligence of the petitioners who were arrested inside the boats.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil NaduDistinguished¶67
(2021) 4 SCC 1 · Who else cites this
Narcotics Control Bureau v. Mohit AggarwalExplained¶73
Manu/SC/0899/2022
Union of India v. Shiv Shankar KesariExplained¶116
(2007) 7 SCC 798 · Who else cites this
Superintendent, Narcotics Central Bureau v. R.PaulsamyExplained¶116
[2000 KHC 1549: AIR 2000 SC 3661: (2000) 9 SCC 549] · Who else cites this
Customs, New Delhi v. Ahmadalieva NodiraExplained¶116
[2004 KHC 505: AIR 2004 SC 3022:2004(3) SCC 549] · Who else cites this
Union of India v. AbdullaExplained¶116
[2004 KHC 1992: 2004(13) SCC 504] · Who else cites this
N.R.Mon v. Md.NasimuddinExplained¶116
[2008 KHC 6547: 2008(6) SCC 721] · Who else cites this
Union of India v. Rattan MalikExplained¶116
[2009 KHC 4151: 2009(2) SCC 624] · Who else cites this
Union of India v. NiyazuddinExplained¶116
[2017 KHC 4465: AIR 2017 SC 3932: 2018 (13) SCC 738] · Who else cites this
State of Kerala v. RajeshExplained¶116
[2020(1) KHC 557: AIR 2020 SC 721] · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 1 enactments
N.D.P.S NO.1140/2022 Petitioners/Accused Nos.6, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18 & 19
Union of India
A. BADHARUDEEN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
