Full Judgment
B.A.No.5847 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. 5847 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 SANTHOSH AGED 48 YEARS S/O.NADESAN@ NATARAJAN, KAKKANATTU HOUSE, CHERIYAPALLANTHURUTHU DESOM, PARAVOOR VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN 683513 K.K.VINOD P.K.ANIL RESPONDENT/STATE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, 682031 SHRI.P.NARAYANAN, ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR OTHER PRESENT: K.A.ANAS- PUBLIC PROSECUTOR. B.A.No.5847 of 2021 2
ORDER
This application for bail has been filed by the petitioner who is arraigned as accused No.1 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 kgs of Ganga and accused Nos.1 and 2 were arrested from the spot. Thereafter on interrogation it was revealed that the 3rd accused had financed to purchase the Ganga from Andhra Pradesh and all the accused are involved in the illicit traffic of the huge quantity of contraband.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that there is
absolutely no material on record to connect this petitioner with the alleged crime, other than the confessional statement of accused Nos.1 and 2, which is not admissible in evidence. B.A.No.5847 of 2021 3
4. 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 be commenced and therefore, he is not entitled to be released on bail.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.
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.
7. 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. 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 23.5.2020. But that alone cannot be taken as a ground to hold that he is entitled to be released on bail by exercising the judicial discretion in favour of the petitioner reckoning the period of detention .
In view of the decision in State of Kerala v. Rajesh (2020 (1) KHC 557) granting of bail in case where commercial quantity of B.A.No.5847 of 2021 4 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 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 also not been made out. Therefore, he is not entitled to be released on bail at this stage. The trial court shall take all endeavour to dispose of the case without any delay as the petitioner is in custody for more than a year. Dismissed. Sd/- SHIRCY V JUDGE smm