Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V. TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2021 / 30TH AGRAHAYANA, 1943 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SC 435/2021 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT, NORTH PARAVUR PETITIONER/SOLE ACCUSED: CHALAM SHAKE, AGED 33 YEARS S/O. SULTHAN SHAKE, HOGAL BEDIYA, BIKUMPUR, RAM NAGAR, NADIYA DISTRICT, WEST BENGAL. BY ADVS. P.THOMAS GEEVERGHESE TONY THOMAS (INCHIPARAMBIL) E.S.FIROS AMRUTHA K.P. RESPONDENT/STATE: STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 682 031. SMT.SREEJA.V-SR.PP THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.12.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Application for regular bail.
2. The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.4/2021 of
Excise Circle Office, Aluva now pending as S.C.No.435/2021 before the Additional Sessions Court, North Paravur registered for the offence punishable under Section 21(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (in short 'NDPS' Act).
3. The petitioner has been in custody since 01.04.2021.
4. The prosecution case is that on 01.04.2021 while the
excise officials attached to the Circle Office, Aluva was on patrolling duty happened to see the petitioner on the road. On suspicion, he was intercepted and examined. Then 18 grams Brown Sugar was seized from his possession. As he was found in illegal possession of drugs kept for sale, in contravention of the provisions of the NDPS Act, he was apprehended and the contraband was seized. Thus, he is undergoing incarceration.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is totally innocent of the allegations levelled against him.
6. As per the report of the learned Public Prosecutor the investigation of the case has been completed and charge sheet has been submitted before the jurisdictional court on 04.05.2021. So the case is pending for trial.
7. It is true that the contraband involved in this case is less than commercial quantity and therefore the statutory embargo
under Section 37 of the NDPS Act is not attracted. But it is pertinent to note that this petitioner is involved in ten cases registered under the NDPS Act. Out of the ten cases he has been convicted in six cases and while he was on bail in the other cases he again committed this offence and thus he was arrested. Considering the nature of the accusation levelled against the
petitioner, no doubt if he is released on bail there is every possibility to repeat similar offence. The possibility to abscond also cannot be ruled out. Now the case is pending for trial. Such being the case if he is released on bail he may abscond and thus upset the trial. Since the possibility to abscond is there, I am not inclined to grant bail as requested by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Hence, I find that the petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail.
Dismissed. Sd/- SHIRCY V. JUDGE mpm