By admin The Kerala High Court ruled that a prima facie opinion formed during the bail application stage should not influence the investigation or trial of a case. The Court further emphasized that the trial court cannot dismiss the legal arguments raised by the accused solely on the basis of a prima facie finding made at the bail stage, as such findings are only pertinent for the purpose of granting or rejecting bail.
The case involved a petitioner who was in judicial custody, facing charges under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act. The petitioner, along with two co-accused, was allegedly involved in the illicit trafficking of ganja and methamphetamine.
A Bench of Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan clarified that a bail court’s preliminary opinion, reached when deciding on bail, is not binding on the trial court when it handles the case for its final disposal.
The Court observed, “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.”
Advocate M.S. Breez appeared for the petitioner and Advocate Hrithwik CS appeared for the respondent.
The petitioner’s counsel argued that there was no concrete evidence against him, claiming that no contraband was seized from him and that his involvement was only based on telephonic conversations with the co-accused. The counsel further argued that the provisions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act did not apply in this case.
The Court noted that the petitioner’s first bail application had been dismissed on January 9, 2025, after considering all the arguments put forward. The petitioner filed a second bail application on February 12, 2025, but the Court ruled that there had been no significant change in circumstances to justify entertaining the second application.
Citing Section 29 of the NDPS Act, the Court reiterated that an accused can be convicted without the actual possession of contraband if there is evidence of abetment or criminal conspiracy.
Regarding the admissibility of the call records between the petitioner and the co-accused, the court ruled that the bail court does not need to assess the admissibility of evidence at this stage. It is only necessary for the bail court to determine whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accused may not be guilty of the alleged offence.
The court emphasized that the bail court must address the points raised by the accused without dismissing them on the grounds that they would amount to a prima facie finding, which could potentially influence the investigation or trial. It made clear that such points should only lead to a preliminary opinion at the bail stage and should not be used as a binding factor for the final outcome of the case. The Court further stated, “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.”
In the present case, the Court concluded that a prima facie case was established against the petitioner, leading to the dismissal of the bail application. However, the Court emphasized that such prima facie findings are relevant only for the purpose of determining bail and should not influence the trial process or the ongoing investigation.
Cause Title: Anzar Azeez v. State of Kerala & Anr., [2025:KER:15357]