Pranav B Prem

In a significant ruling, the Kerala High Court held that a prima facie opinion at the bail application stage would not impact the investigation and trial. It further observed that the trial court cannot reject legal contentions of the accused merely on the ground that they amount to a prima facie finding, as such determination is only relevant at the bail application stage.

Court’s Observations and Ruling

The court categorically stated: “A finding of a prima facie case at the bail application stage is not binding to the trial court at the time of final disposal of that case. It is not binding to the Investigating Officer for further investigation to collect materials in addition to the materials collected already. Therefore, simply because a prima facie opinion is arrived at by the bail court while deciding a bail application, it is not binding on the trial court at the time of the final hearing, nor it is binding on the Investigating Officer, debarring the collection of further evidence.”

Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan further observed: “Bail court cannot escape from dealing with that contention by observing that, it amounts to a 'prima facie finding' in a bail application, which will be used by the accused or the prosecution, as the case may be. I make it clear that no court shall rely on a 'prima facie finding' by the bail court while deciding the main case finally. Similarly, the investigating agency shall not stop the investigation, because there is a prima facie finding that no offence is made out. Investigating officer can proceed with the case, untrammeled by the observation of the bail court.”

Background of the Case

The petitioner, Anzar Azeez, was accused in Crime No. 1236/2023 registered at Adimali Police Station, Idukki, for offences under Sections 20(b)(ii)B, 22(c), and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). The prosecution alleged that the petitioner, along with two co-accused, engaged in a criminal conspiracy for the illicit trafficking of ganja and Methamphetamine. The case against the petitioner was primarily based on telephonic conversations with the first accused and the alleged delivery of 5.125 kgs of ganja to the main accused. The prosecution argued that Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which imposes strict conditions for granting bail in drug-related offences, was applicable.

Arguments by the Petitioner

1. No contraband was seized from the petitioner.

2. The prosecution's case was based solely on call records and the confession statement of the first accused.

3. The bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act was inapplicable.

4. The admissibility of call records should not be considered at the bail stage.

Court’s Analysis on Legal Principles

The High Court examined the applicability of Section 29 of the NDPS Act, which deals with punishment for abetment and criminal conspiracy. The court observed: “A perusal of the same would show that an accused can be prosecuted even if no contraband is seized from him, provided there is evidence to show that there is abetment and criminal conspiracy. In other words, the Section would show that the actual possession of the contraband is not necessary to convict a person for the offences under the NDPS Act. If abetment and criminal conspiracy are proved, the accused can be convicted.”  Furthermore, the court noted that bail courts should not dismiss legal contentions on the ground that they would amount to a prima facie finding: “Not only in NDPS cases but in any bail application, if the counsel for the accused raises a legal point or a point on merit, the bail court cannot reject the same, saying that it will amount to a finding of prima facie case at the bail application stage.”

The court also referred to the Supreme Court ruling in Rohit Bishnoi v. State of Rajasthan [2023 KHC 6732], which held that: “While we are conscious of the fact that liberty of an individual is an invaluable right, at the same time while considering an application for bail, courts cannot lose sight of the serious nature of the accusations against an accused and the facts that have a bearing on the case, particularly, when the accusations may not be false, frivolous or vexatious in nature but are supported by adequate material brought on record so as to enable a court to arrive at a prima facie conclusion.”

Verdict

The High Court concluded that a prima facie case was made out against the petitioner, thereby rejecting his bail plea. However, it reiterated that any prima facie findings made at the bail stage would not influence the trial court or restrict further investigation: “But I make it clear that these findings are only for the purpose of deciding this bail application and this is not binding to the trial court and the trial court is bound to dispose of the main case untrammeled by any observations in this order.”  Accordingly, the bail application was dismissed.

Cause Title: Anzar Azeez v State of Kerala

Neutral Ctation No: 2025:KER:15357

Case No: Bail Application No. 2181 OF 2025

Bench: Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan

[Read/Download order]