Full Judgment
BAIL APPL. NO. 4003 OF 2021 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V. THURSDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 8TH ASWINA, 1943 BAIL APPL. NO. 4003 OF 2021 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SC 814/2020 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, THRISSUR, THRISSUR (CRIME NO.1654 OF 2020 OF KODUNGALLUR POLICE STATION) PETITIONER/S: VIJU AGED 47 YEARS, S/O, SEBASTIAN, KALLARACKAL VEEDU, GOTHURUTHU THEKKE KADAVU, CHENDAMANGALAM VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV SAM ISAAC POTHIYIL RESPONDENT
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM PIN 682031
2. STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KODUNGALLUR POLICE STATION,
KODUNGALLUR, THRISSUR DISTRCIT, PIN 680669 OTHER PRESENT: SRI. MANU.P.G- SR.PP THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.09.2021 THE COURT ON 30.09.2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: BAIL APPL. NO. 4003 OF 2021 2
ORDER
This bail application has been filed by the petitioner who is arraigned as accused No.3 in Crime No.1654 of 2020 of Kodungalloor Police Station, Thrissur registered for the offences punishable under Sections 22(b)(II)(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'NDPS Act').
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows: On 23.5.2020 at about 1.10 p.m a lorry bearing No.KL-52/A 3996
was intercepted by the Sub Inspector of Police at a place near Pulloot bridge and seized 75.625 kilograms of Ganga and accused Nos.1 and 2 were arrested from the spot. Thereafter on interrogation it is revealed that this petitioner is the person who financed to purchase the Ganga from Andhra Pradesh and thus he has been booked as the 3 rd accused .
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that there is absolutely no material on record to connect this petitioner with the BAIL APPL. NO. 4003 OF 2021 3
alleged crime. This petitioner is implicated merely based on the confessional statement of accused Nos.1 and 2. Apart from their statement there is no material to connect him with the alleged offence and hence, he is entitled to be released on bail.
5. The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that huge
quantity of contraband is involved in this case and now charge sheet has been filed and trial has already been commenced and therefore, he is not entitled to be released on bail.
6. It is true that the contraband was seized by the Sub Inspector
of Police by intercepting a vehicle and accused Nos.1 and 2 alone were arrested from the spot with the contraband article. Thereafter on interrogation only it was revealed that the petitioner is the person who provided finance to procure the contraband and for illicit traffic from Andhra Pradesh. So under Section 27-A this petitioner has been arraigned as accused No.3. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the confessional statement of the accused Nos.1 and 2 are not sufficient to implicate him in this case.
7. But the argument of the learned Public Prosecutor is that apart
from the confessional statement of the accused Nos.1 and 2, there are materials to connect this petitioner with the alleged offence. Whether materials are available to connect the petitioner that the funds to
BAIL APPL. NO. 4003 OF 2021 4 procure the contraband from Andhra Pradesh was provided by him could be established only during trial of the case. Whether materials are available other than confessional statement of accused Nos.1 and 2 is definitely a matter to be decided on evidence. Now the investigation of the case is over and charge sheet has been filed against the petitioner. It is important to notice that the court has scheduled the case for trial.
In Tofan Singh v. State of T.N. (2021 (4) SCC 1) it is held that: “404. A confessional statement does not automatically result in the conviction of an accused offender. Such statements have to be tendered and proved in accordance with the law. The evidentiary value of the statement which is confessional in nature has to be weighed and assessed by the court at the trial.”
8. Granting of bail at this stage will definitely disturb and upset
the smooth flow of the trial of the case. It is true that he is undergoing incarceration from the date of his arrest ie; on 12.06.2021. As huge quantity of contraband is involved the petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail by exercising the judicial discretion only on reckoning the period of detention.
9. In view of the decision in State of Kerala v. Rajesh (2020
(1) KHC 557) granting of bail in case where commercial quantity of contraband is involved is circumscribed by the provisions of Section 37 (1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act. The petitioner has to satisfy the twin
BAIL APPL. NO. 4003 OF 2021 5 conditions for entitlement of bail. Here, the petitioner could not show that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of the offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence, if released on bail. So also substantial change which calls for a fresh look to the case against him has not been made out. Therefore, he is not entitled to be released on bail at this stage. Dismissed. The trial court shall take all endeavour to dispose of the case without any delay. Sd/- SHIRCY V JUDGE smm