Featured image for Supreme Court Judgment dated 24-01-2020 in case of petitioner name State of Kerala vs Rajesh & Others
| |

Supreme Court Cancels Bail in NDPS Case: Emphasizes Stringent Bail Conditions

The case of State of Kerala vs. Rajesh & Others is a significant ruling concerning bail conditions under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985. The Supreme Court had to decide whether the High Court erred in granting bail to the accused without considering the mandatory provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which restricts bail for offences involving commercial quantities of narcotic substances.

Background of the Case

The case involved two separate criminal incidents registered under the NDPS Act:

Crime No. 14/2018

On May 25, 2018, at 5:30 PM, in the parking area of Hotel Aquarock, Mannanthala, Kerala, three accused (A1 to A3) were arrested with 10.202 kg of hashish oil and Rs. 13,50,000 in cash. The prosecution alleged that A5 (Shajimon) had supplied the hashish oil to A1 through A2 for sale in the international market. The accused were charged under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C) and 29 of the NDPS Act.

Initially, the Sessions Court denied bail, citing the strict conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. However, the Kerala High Court granted bail to A5 on May 10, 2019, without considering the statutory requirements.

Crime No. 19/2018

On October 25, 2018, at Aristo Junction, Thiruvananthapuram, accused A1 (Shajimon) and A3 (Rajesh) were caught with 1.8 kg of hashish oil. The prosecution charged them under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act. The Sessions Court denied bail on February 21, 2019, but the High Court subsequently granted bail on May 10, 2019.

Arguments by the Petitioner

The State of Kerala challenged the bail orders in the Supreme Court, presenting the following arguments:

  • The High Court erred in granting bail without considering the stringent conditions under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act.
  • Section 37 mandates that for bail to be granted, the court must be satisfied that the accused is not guilty of the offence and is unlikely to commit further offences while on bail.
  • The accused were caught in possession of commercial quantities of hashish oil, triggering the stricter bail conditions.
  • The High Court’s reasoning that other accused in Crime No. 14/2018 were granted bail was irrelevant, as each bail decision must be independently assessed under Section 37.
  • The accused had prior criminal records and were likely to re-offend if released.

Arguments by the Respondent

The defense counsel argued:

  • The accused were in jail for 195 days before the bail was granted, and further custody was unnecessary.
  • The High Court applied its judicial discretion properly by imposing stringent bail conditions.
  • The accused were allegedly framed due to prior enmity with the investigating officers.
  • Charge sheets had already been filed, and there was no need for further custody.
  • The prosecution did not challenge bail granted to other accused in the same case, making the appeal discriminatory.

Supreme Court Judgment

The Supreme Court ruled that the High Court failed to apply Section 37 of the NDPS Act correctly:

“The jurisdiction of the Court to grant bail is circumscribed by the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. It can be granted only if the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty and is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.”

The Court made the following key observations:

  • Section 37 requires that bail should not be granted unless both conditions – non-guilt and non-recidivism – are met.
  • The High Court failed to assess the prosecution’s case in light of these requirements.
  • Merely citing the long duration of custody does not justify bail when commercial quantities of drugs are involved.
  • The prosecution’s failure to challenge bail for other accused does not weaken its case against the present respondents.

Legal Precedents Considered

The Supreme Court referred to various precedents reinforcing the strict bail conditions under the NDPS Act:

  • Union of India vs. Ram Samujh (1999) 9 SCC 429 – Courts must ensure strict compliance with Section 37 before granting bail in NDPS cases.
  • Satpal Singh vs. State of Punjab (2018) 13 SCC 813 – A liberal approach to bail in NDPS cases is not justified.
  • Durand Didier vs. Chief Secretary, Goa (1990) 1 SCC 95 – Narcotics-related offences have severe societal consequences, justifying stricter bail conditions.

Final Outcome

The Supreme Court set aside the bail orders and directed that the accused be taken into custody immediately. It also directed the trial court to expedite the proceedings.

This judgment reinforces the strict approach required under the NDPS Act to curb drug trafficking and ensures that courts rigorously apply the legal conditions for granting bail in narcotics cases.


Petitioner Name: State of Kerala.
Respondent Name: Rajesh & Others.
Judgment By: Justice Indu Malhotra, Justice Ajay Rastogi.
Place Of Incident: Kerala.
Judgment Date: 24-01-2020.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: State of Kerala vs Rajesh & Others Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 24-01-2020.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Drug Possession Cases
See all petitions in Bail and Anticipatory Bail
See all petitions in Judgment by Indu Malhotra
See all petitions in Judgment by Ajay Rastogi
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Cancelled Bail
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments January 2020
See all petitions in 2020 judgments

See all posts in Criminal Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category

Similar Posts