SHAHINA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners in these applications seek regular bail under Sec. 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'the BNSS'). Since the accused in all these applications are alleged to have committed offences under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'the NDPS Act'), and they claim the right to be released on bail alleging that the grounds for arrest have not been communicated, the cases are being disposed by this common order.

(2.) I have heard Sri. Babu S. Nair, Sri. N.A. Shafeek, Sri. K.K. Dheerendra Krishnan, Smt. Sai Pooja and Smt. Fathima Sulfath N.B, the learned counsel for the respective petitioners. It was contended that the entire allegations against the petitioners are false and they are all innocent. Apart from contending that there is a total absence of any material to connect the petitioners with the offence, the learned counsel submitted that the constitutional right of being informed of the grounds for arrest was not complied with, and therefore, the accused ought to be released forthwith.

(3.) Sri. K.A Noushad, the learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand submitted that the petitioners in each of these cases are involved in serious offences for possession of commercial quantities of narcotic drugs, and therefore, the rigour under Sec. 37 of the NDPS Act applies. It was also submitted that the materials collected during investigation clearly point to the guilt of the accused, and therefore, there is no reason to release them on bail. As regards the contention based on the mandate of Article 22 of the Constitution of India, that the grounds for arrest must be informed to the arrestee, it was pointed out that the said requirement has been complied with scrupulously and the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners are vague and not specific.