Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Clint vs State of Kerala

CLINT vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Orders Decided Jan 31, 2022
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1444284

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Kerala Orders High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
Bail Appl./545/2022

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

CLINT

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....the first accused at alwaye and that the moneyfor purchase of contraband was provided by the petitioner/second accused. it is submitted that the entire aspect including procurement and payment were initiated at the instance of the petitioner/second accused. it is also alleged that following the arrest of the petitioner/second accused, on the basis of information given by him, certain quantity of contraband was also recovered from his house and in respect of which separate crime has been registered by the peechy policeagainst the petitioner/second accused. though the learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submits that there has been no recovery of contraband from the petitioner/second accused, the facts appear to be otherwise. that apart, it is the allegation of the prosecution that the petitioner used to finance the purchase of contraband by the first accused and it was on his instructions that the first accused had transported contraband from bangalore to alwaye.having regard to the the fact and circumstances of the case, i am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. in the result application fails and dismissed. sd/- gopinath p. judge aj appendix of bail appl. 545/2022 petitioner annexures annexure1 true copy of the fir no: 1580 dated 21.12.2021 registered by angamaly police annexure2 true copy of the newspaper report in malayala manorama daily dated 22.12.2021 annexure3 original copy of the order dated 10.01.2022 in bail application crmc no: 5 of 2022 of ii additional sessions court, ernakulam

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P. MONDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 11TH MAGHA, 1943 PETITIONER: CLINT AGED 24 YEARS SON OF SRI XAVIER, PATHRAKKADAYIL HOUSE, PATTIKKAD P O, PANANCHERY, THRISSUR, PIN - 686052 PREEJA V.P. V.P.PRASANTH GEORGE BRISTON RESPONDENT: STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ADDL.DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION SRI. C.K. SURESH (SR.PP) THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31.01.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: GOPINATH.P, J ------------------------------ B.A. No.545 of 2022 ------------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of January, 2022

ORDER

Petitioner is the 2nd accused in Crime No.1580/2021 of the Angamaly Police Station, Ernakulam district alleging commission of offences under Sections 20(b), 8(c) and 27(A) and 29 of NDPS Act.

2. The allegation is that, the first accused in the case was

transporting certain quantity of contraband in a bus traveling from Bangalore to Alwaye, the bus was intercepted at Angamaly and certain quantity of contraband was recovered from first accused. It is alleged that the petitioner/second accused was waiting to receive the first accused at Alwaye and that the money

for purchase of contraband was provided by the petitioner/second accused. It is submitted that the entire aspect including procurement and payment were initiated at the instance of the petitioner/second accused. It is also alleged that following the arrest of the petitioner/second accused, on the basis of information given by him, certain quantity of contraband was also recovered from his house and in respect of which separate crime has been registered by the Peechy Police

against the petitioner/second accused. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submits that there has been no recovery of contraband from the petitioner/second accused, the facts appear to be otherwise. That apart, it is the allegation of the prosecution that the petitioner used to finance the purchase of contraband by the first accused and it was on his instructions that the first accused had transported contraband from Bangalore to Alwaye.

Having regard to the the fact and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. In the result application fails and dismissed. Sd/- GOPINATH P. JUDGE AJ APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 545/2022 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR NO: 1580 DATED 21.12.2021 REGISTERED BY ANGAMALY POLICE Annexure2 TRUE COPY OF THE NEWSPAPER REPORT IN MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY DATED 22.12.2021 Annexure3 ORIGINAL COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10.01.2022 IN BAIL APPLICATION CRMC NO: 5 OF 2022 OF II ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial