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.

Sanoop, vs State of Kerala

Sanoop, vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Orders Decided Feb 02, 2022
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1445211

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./639/2022

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Sanoop,

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....hadgone along with the other accused to andhra pradesh without knowing, in any manner, that the other accused were transporting ganja. it is submitted that the petitioner is absolutely innocent in the matter and he may be granted bail subject to conditions also considering the fact that a final report has already been filed in the matter. it is also submitted that the petitioner has nocriminal antecedents that may be a factor to take into account while considering the entitlement of the petitioner for bail.4. the learned public prosecutor submits that the investigationcarried out thus far shows that the petitioner was actively involved in the procurement and transport of ganja in such huge quantities. it is submitted that the ganja was procured from andhra pradesh and the investigation has revealed that the petitioner had gone to andhra pradesh with other accused in the case for the purpose of purchasing and transporting ganja to kerala. it isb.a.no.639/2022 3 submitted that going by the provisions of section 37 of the ndps act, the petitioner is not entitled to bail.5. having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, i find nomaterial to hold that the petitioner is prima facie not guilty of the offence alleged against him. it is only when this court is prima facie convinced that the petitioner may not be guilty of the offences alleged against him that a person accused of committing offence under the ndps act (to which section 37 applies) can be released on bail. section 37 of the ndps act mandates that unless this court were to reach a conclusion that there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner is guilty of the offence alleged against him, the petitioner is not entitled to bail, if the drugs in question are in commercial quantity. there is no dispute in this case that the drugs involved were in commercial quantity.the bail application fails and is accordingly dismissed. sd/- gopinath p. judge acd

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P. WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 13TH MAGHA, 1943 BAIL APPL. NO. 639 OF 2022 CRIME NO.758/2021 OF CHALAKUDY POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT AGAINST THE ORDER IN CRMP 2918/2021 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, THRISSUR PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED: SANOOP, AGED 23 YEARS S/O. SHAJU, KOLLAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, MADAVANA KUMBALAM VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV SHYLA SHAFFEQ(S-1284)

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 682 031. OTHER PRESENT: SRI. C.K. SURESH (SR.PP) THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.02.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: B.A.No.639/2022 2

ORDER

This is an application for regular bail.

2. The petitioner is the 2nd accused in Crime No.758/2021 of

Chalakkudy Police Station, Thrissur District alleging commission of offences under Sections 20(b)(ii) (C) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The allegation against the petitioner is that on 07.10.2021, at about 10.15 A.M., the petitioner along with the other accused in the case, were found transporting 178.650 Kg of Ganja in a car bearing registration No.KL-46-N-6060 at a place called Potta near Thrissur.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits the petitioner had

gone along with the other accused to Andhra Pradesh without knowing, in any manner, that the other accused were transporting Ganja. It is submitted that the petitioner is absolutely innocent in the matter and he may be granted bail subject to conditions also considering the fact that a final report has already been filed in the matter. It is also submitted that the petitioner has no

criminal antecedents that may be a factor to take into account while considering the entitlement of the petitioner for bail.

4. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the investigation

carried out thus far shows that the petitioner was actively involved in the procurement and transport of Ganja in such huge quantities. It is submitted that the Ganja was procured from Andhra Pradesh and the investigation has revealed that the petitioner had gone to Andhra Pradesh with other accused in the case for the purpose of purchasing and transporting Ganja to Kerala. It is

B.A.No.639/2022 3 submitted that going by the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the petitioner is not entitled to bail.

5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I find no

material to hold that the petitioner is prima facie not guilty of the offence alleged against him. It is only when this Court is prima facie convinced that the petitioner may not be guilty of the offences alleged against him that a person accused of committing offence under the NDPS Act (to which Section 37 applies) can be released on bail. Section 37 of the NDPS Act mandates that unless this Court were to reach a conclusion that there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner is guilty of the offence alleged against him, the petitioner is not entitled to bail, if the drugs in question are in commercial quantity. There is no dispute in this case that the drugs involved were in commercial quantity.

The bail application fails and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- GOPINATH P. JUDGE acd

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial