Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 10TH VAISAKHA, 1946 BAIL APPL. NO. 2515 OF 2024 CRIME NO.68/2023 OF NORTH PARAVUR EXCISE RANGE OFFICE, ERNAKULAM AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 12.12.2023 IN CRMP NO.619/2024 IN SC NO.229 OF 2024 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT - II, NORTH PARAVUR/I ADDITIONAL MACT, NORTH PARAVUR PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED: NIDHIN, AGED 22 YEARS S/O.MANOJ, THARAYIL HOUSE, LAVANYA, PARAVUR FORT ROAD KARAYIL, NORTH PARAVUR VILLAGE, PARAVUR, BY ADVS. P.K.VARGHESE M.T.SAMEER(K/3346/1999) DHANESH V.MADHAVAN(K/298/2006) K.R.ARUN KRISHNAN(K/617/2011) JERRY MATHEW(K/658/2015) REGHU SREEDHARAN(K/653/2020) RAMEEZ M. AZEEZ(K/001008/2022) RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT/STATE: 1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 2 EXCISE RANGE INSPECTOR , OFFICE OF EXCISE RANGE OFFICE, NORTH PARAVUR, ADV PUSHPALATHA M K-SR PP THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
P.G. AJITHKUMAR, J.
------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of April, 2024
ORDER
This is an application for bail filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
2. The petitioner is the 1st accused in Sessions Case
No.229 of 2024. He allegedly had committed the offences punishable under Section 20(b)(II)(B), 27A , 29 and 60(3) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
4. The prosecution allegations are the following: At about 8.10 p.m on 12.12.2023, 1.540 kilograms of ganja was seized from the house of the petitioner. They possessed the contraband for the purpose of sale.
5. The petitioner would contend that he did not involve in the alleged crime and without any material or evidence, he has been implicated in the crime. He is innocent. The investigation in the matter has been progressed considerably and there is no reason or justification for his further detention.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor would submit that
considering the seriousness of the offence and the possibility of interfering with the investigation by the petitioner in the event of his release on bail, this petition deserve only to be dismissed.
7. The petitioner along with the 2nd accused filed Crl.M.P.No. 619 of 2024. The trial court allowed that petition in part. The 2nd accused was granted bail. The petitioner was
denied bail holding that he is a habitual offender. He has involved in two other similar cases and therefore release of him on bail is a threat to the society inasmuch as he would involve in similar offences again.
8. The anguish expressed by the trial court is
reasonable. However, having the seizure been from the house and the 2nd accused granted bail, it is only appropriate to extend the same benefit to the petitioner also. The petitioner has involved in two other similar cases and therefore there must be a watch to guard against his involving in any offence of similar type in future. In the result, the bail application is allowed and the petitioner is granted bail on his/her executing a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only), with two solvent sureties for the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the trial court, subject to the following conditions:
(i) He shall not influence or intimidate witnesses or tamper with evidence;
(ii) He shall appear before the investigating officer every Wednesday between 3.00 p.m and 4.00 p.m until otherwise ordered by the trial court; and
(iii) During the bail period, he shall not get involved in any offence. In case of breach of the bail conditions, the prosecution
shall be at liberty to apply for cancellation of the bail before the jurisdictional court. Registration of a new crime against the petitioner will result immediate cancellation of his bail. Sd/- P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE PV