Kerala HC states that the cancellation of the curation of the accused NDPS that has been allowed in another case

Justice vg throw noted that drugs have arrived at children going to school. The court observed that if a person accused of crimes under the NDPS law, who would have misused his freedom, committing the same crime, is allowed to walk freely, it will be a threat to society.

“While it is possible to mention that in 2024, 24,517 arrests were reported in Kerala, even forcing the state legislator to suspend the usual activity to discuss the impact of the substance abuse. This court cannot be ignored by this reality. The poisonous combinations of the drug mafia have even reached children who go to school. While an individual’s freedom is precious and must be protected with zeal, this cannot be with the price of society. An accused who would have misused freedom by committing the same crime, if he allowed to walk freely, will undoubtedly be a threat to society. “

The accused was initially reserved in accordance with sections 22 (B) (the penalty for manufacturing, detention, sale, transport, import, inter-state export or the use of psychotropic substances that involve greater than small, but smaller than commercial quantity) and section 29 (1) (deviation or conspiracy for the crime. Mdma.

He was given bail by the High Court. One of the conditions in which the bail was given was that the accused should refrain from getting involved in other crimes. However, it was subsequently involved in other cases for crimes in accordance with sections 22 (B), section 29 and section 22 (A) (offense that involves a small amount of psychotropic substance) in accordance with NDPS. In this reason, the special court has canceled its bail. Against this fact, the petitioner approached the High Court.

The petitioner was based on Godson V State of Kerala and Ors. (2022), Renjith v the kerala state (2023) and Visakh v the state of Kerala and another (2024) and argued that the mere registration of the subsequent crime cannot lead to the automatic cancellation of the bail. He argued that, in order to cancel the bail, the court should be convinced that the subsequent crime is related to an attempt to interfere with the administration of justice or that it would affect the case in which the accused has given bail. It was also claimed that the petitioner was falsely involved in subsequent crime and no smuggling from his possession was recovered.

The prosecutor opposed the petition, saying that, involving in a subsequent crime of a similar nature, the petitioner misused the freedom granted to him and this was a sufficient reason to cancel the search.

Court He mentioned that, in all cases, the petitioner mentioned, both the initial and subsequent crimes were not offenses under the NDPS law. He said that in the decisions mentioned by the petitioner, either later or both offenses were registered for crimes within the CPI.

However, in this case, said the High Court, both offenses were for crimes under the NDPS law. The court said that, according to the NDPS law, improved penalties are granted for offenses after the previous conviction in accordance with section 31 and section 31A. Also, the court took note of the rigor of section 37 in terms of giving the bail. The court said that this indicates the social impact of drugs related to drugs.

The court mentioned that the bail granted to a person accused of such crimes can be canceled even if the subsequent crime does not have the effect to interfere with the case in which he has given bail.

As a result, the petition was rejected.

Petitioner counselor: Lawyers P. Mohamed Sabah, Libin Stanley, Saipooja, Sadik Ismayil, R. Gayathri, M. Mahin Hamza, Alwin Joseph, Benson Ambrose

Result advisor: adv. Mc ashi (pp)

Case no: CRL.MC 1199 of 2025

Case title: Muhammed Shibil V State of Kerala and another

Quote: 2025 Livelaw (Ker) 160