Ahammed Rashid vs State Of Kerala

C.S.Dias, J

The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the third accused in crime No.3802/2023 of the Ernakulam Central Police Station, registered against the accused (three in number), for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Secs.22(b) and 29 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The petitioner was arrested on 5.12.2023.

The gist of the prosecution case is that: On 5.12.2023 around 10.10 p.m, the Police party searched a lodge near the North Police Station and found the accused in possession of 7.60 grams of MDMA and Rs.2880/-.

Thus, the accused have committed the above offences.

Heard; Sri.Rahul Sasi, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt.Neema T.V, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the crime. The petitioner has no criminal antecedents. He has been in judicial custody since 5.12.2023, which is now 46 days. The investigation in the case is practically complete. The contraband is only of intermediate quantity. The petitioner would be entitled to default bail in another fourteen days. Therefore, the petitioner may be released on bail.

The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. Nonetheless, she conceded to the fact that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents, the investigation in the case is practically complete and the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last 46 days.

After bestowing my anxious consideration to the materials placed on record, particularly taking note of the fact that the contraband involved is of intermediate quantity, the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 5.12.2023, the petitioner has no criminal antecedents and the investigation in the case is practically complete, I am of the view that the petitioner can be released on bail. Hence, the bail application is allowed.

In the result, the application is allowed, by directing the petitioner to be released on bail on him executing a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum, to the satisfaction of the court having jurisdiction, which shall be subject to the following conditions:

(i) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on every Saturday between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m for a period of one month or till the final report is laid, whichever is earlier. He shall also appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required;

(ii) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or procure to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any Police Officer or tamper with the evidence in any manner, whatsoever;

(iii) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while he is on bail;

(iv) The petitioner shall surrender his passport, if any, before the court below within a period of two days after his release on the specific undertaking made by this sureties in this regard. If he has no passport, he shall file an affidavit to the effect before the court below on the date of execution of the bond;

(v) The petitioner shall furnish his present address and permanent address, and his mobile phone number to the court below and the Investigating Officer;

(vi) In case of violation of any of the conditions mentioned above, the jurisdictional court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation of bail, if any filed, and pass orders on the same, in accordance with law.

(vii) Applications for deletion/modification of the bail conditions shall be moved and entertained by the court below.

(viii) Needless to mention, it would be well within the powers of the Investigating Officer to investigate the matter and, if necessary, to effect recoveries on the information, if any, given by the petitioner even while the petitioner is on bail as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another [2020 (1) KHC 663].