Akash N.V vs State Of Kerala

C.S.Dias, J

The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the 8th accused in Crime No.428/2024 of the Ernakulam South Police Station, Ernakulam registered against the accused (ten in number) for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 22(b) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short, ‘the Act’). The petitioner was arrested on 27.03.2024.

The crux of the prosecution case is that: on 27.03.2024 at around 19.25 hours, the Investigating Officer received an information that the accused were dealing with contraband article. Accordingly, the Detecting Officer conducted a search at the place of occurrence and seized 3.45 grams of MDMA from the accused. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences.

Heard; Sri.B.N.Shivsankar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt.Seetha S., the learned Public Prosecutor.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusations leveled against him. He has been falsely implicated in the crime. There are no materials to show the petitioner's involvement in the case. In any given case, the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 27.03.2024, the investigation in the case is practically complete and recovery has been effected. Moreover, the contraband involved in the case is of an intermediate quantity and the petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents. Hence, the application may be allowed.

The learned Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the application. He submitted that the investigation in the case is in progress. He also stated that, if the petitioner is released on bail, there is every likelihood of him committing similar offences. Hence, the application may be dismissed.

The prosecution allegation is that the petitioner and the other accused were found in conscious possession of an intermediate quantity of MDMA. The accused were arrested on the spot with the contraband article. The fact remains that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 27.03.2024, the contraband involved in the case is of an intermediate quantity and the petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents. Therefore, I am inclined to allow the bail application, but subject to stringent conditions.

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 till the final report is filed. He shall also appear before the Investigating Officer as and when directed.

(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 at the time of execution of the bond. 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) 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.

(vi) Application for deletion/modification of the bail conditions shall be filed and entertained before the court below.

(vii) 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].