Drug Mafia's 'Poisonous Fangs' Have Reached School Kids: Kerala HC Affirms Bail Cancellation Of NDPS Accused Who Indulged In Another Case

Justice V. G. Arun remarked that the drugs have reached to the school going children. The Court observed that if a person accused of offences under NDPS Act who allegedly misused his liberty by committing the same offence is allowed to roam free, it will be a threat to the society.

“While on point, it is essential to mention that in the year 2024, 24,517 narcotic related arrests were reported in Kerala, compelling even the State legislature to suspend its regular business for discussing the societal impact of substance abuse. This Court cannot be oblivious of this reality. The poisonous fangs of drug mafia have reached even school going children. While liberty of an individual is precious and is to be protected zealously, that cannot be at the cost of the society. An accused who allegedly misused his liberty by committing the same offence, if allowed to roam free will undoubtedly be a threat to the society.”

The accused was initially booked under Sections 22(b) (punishment for manufacturing, possessing, selling, purchasing. Transporting, importing, exporting inter-State or using psychotropic substances involving quantity larger than small but lesser than commercial quantity) and Section 29(1) (abetment or conspiracy to commit an offence under the Act) of NDPS Act for possessing 7.22 grams of MDMA.

He was granted bail by the High Court. One of the conditions on which the bail was given was that the accused should refrain from getting involved in other offences. However, subsequently he got involved in another cases for offences under Sections 22(b), Section 29 and Section 22(a) (offence involving small quantity of psychotropic substance) under NDPS. On this ground, the Special Court cancelled his bail. Against this, the petitioner approached the High Court.

The petitioner relied on Godson v State of Kerala and Ors. (2022), Renjith v State of Kerala (2023) and Visakh v State of Kerala and Another (2024) and contended that mere registration of subsequent crime cannot result in automatic cancellation of bail. He argued that for cancellation of bail, the court should be satisfied that the subsequent crime is in relation to an attempt on the part of the accused to interfere with the administration of justice or that it would affect the trial of the case in which the accused was given bail. It was also submitted that the petitioner was falsely implicated in subsequent crime and no contraband was recovered from his possession.

The prosecutor opposed the petition by saying that by involving in a subsequent crime of similar nature, the petitioner misused the liberty granted to him and that was sufficient reason for cancellation of bail.

The Court noted that in all of the cases the petitioner referred to, both the initial and subsequent crimes were not offences under NDPS Act. It said that in the judgments referred by the petitioner, either the subsequent or both crimes were registered for offences under IPC.

However, in the present case, the high court said, both crimes were for offences under NDPS Act. The Court said that under the NDPS Act, enhanced punishments are given for offences after previous conviction under Section 31 and Section 31A. The Court also took note of the rigour of Section 37 in the matter of granting bail. The Court said that this indicates the social impact of drug related crimes.

The Court noted that the bail granted to a person accused of such offences can be cancelled even if the subsequent crime does not have the effect of interfering with the trial of the case in which he was granted bail.

Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.

Counsel for the Petitioners: Advocates P. Mohamed Sabah, Libin Stanley, Saipooja, Sadik Ismayil, R. Gayathri, M. Mahin Hamza, Alwin Joseph, Benson Ambrose

Counsel for the Respondents: Adv. M. C. Ashi (PP)

Case No: Crl.MC 1199 of 2025

Case Title: Muhammed Shibil v State of Kerala and Another

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 160