The Supreme Court has set aside the Madras High Court order, which granted bail to a drug peddler, and observed that the courts should be slow in granting even regular bail, leaving aside anticipatory bail, in case the quantity of narcotic substances seized was huge.

The Bench of Justice B R Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta noted that it was even more necessary to keep the accused in custody, if they allegedly had criminal antecedents.

Quashing the anticipatory bail granted to B Ramu in a case related to the recovery of 232.5 kg ganja, the Apex Court called the Madras High Court order as ‘cryptic’ and ‘perverse’ on the face of the record, adding that the same could not be sustained.

The Bench further took objection to the single-judge Bench of the High Court directing the appellant to deposit Rs 30,000 to the credit of the registered Tamil Nadu Advocate Clerk Association, Chennai, along with various other conditions, calling the approach ‘very strange’.

It noted that such a condition was ‘totally alien’ to the principles governing bail jurisprudence and was nothing short of perversity.

The Apex Court further cited Section 37 of the NDPS Act and said in the event the Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer for bail either regular or anticipatory, as the case may be, the court would have to record satisfaction that there were grounds for believing that the accused was not guilty of the offence alleged and that he was not likely to commit any offence while on bail.

It noted that the High Court not only omitted to record any satisfaction in this case, but rather completely ignored the factum of recovery of narcotic substance, multiple times the commercial quantity.

It noted that the High Court further failed to consider the fact that the accused has criminal antecedents and was already arraigned in two previous cases under the NDPS Act.

The Bench ordered the accused to surrender within 10 days while noting that after the investigation, the charge sheet was filed against the respondent accused along with other accused, which fortified the plea that the court could not have recorded a satisfaction that the accused was prima facie not guilty of the offences alleged.

The matter pertained to a case lodged in 2021 in Erode district upon search of the house of Brinda and Kesavan. Both the accused were found to be in possession of 232.5 kg ganja. The respondent was indicted as being the conspirator for the procurement and supply of the ganja so recovered.

New Delhi (ILNS): In connection with the arrest of Bineesh Kodiyeri, son of Kerala CPI (M) leader Kodiyeri Balakrishnan, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) has alleged that the former credited “huge amount of unaccounted funds” into the bank accounts of a drug peddler.

The agency has alleged that the “drug peddler” in this case, Mohammed Anoop, was a ‘benamidar’ of Bineesh.

Yesterday, ED had arrested Bineesh Kodiyeri under relevant sections of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) case related to drugs seizure.

The agency later produced him before a local court which had sent him to ED custody till November 2.

Benamidar is a person in whose name the benami property is held or transferred, and a beneficial owner of the person for whose benefit the property is being held by the benamidar.

Also Read: Future Group vs Amazon: Clash of the titans

Reportedly, the central probe agency had thrice questioned Bineesh Kodiyeri about his alleged links with an accused, M Anoop, was arrested by the ED on October 17 in this case.