High CourtsSingle Bench

Akhil Manoj vs State Of Kerala

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 24 May 2022 · Citation: (2022) 05 KL CK 0123

HON’BLE JUDGES
Gopinath P, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Section 20(b)(ii), 22(b)
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Bail Application No. 3639 Of 2022
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

15 paragraphs · 548 words

Gopinath P., J

1.

This is an application for regular bail.

2.

The petitioner is the 4th accused in Crime No.350/2022 of Infopark Police Station, Ernakulam District alleging commission of offences under Sections 20(b)(ii) and 22(b) of the NDPS Act, 1985.

3.

The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner along with the other accused were found in a possession of 1.1 grams of MDMA and 148 grams of hashish oil in an apartment known as Kent Mahal in Bhramapuram.

4.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated. It is submitted that the petitioner is not a resident of the apartment from where the contraband was seized. It is submitted that there is nothing to connect the petitioner with a contraband in question. It is submitted, with reference to Annexure G, that the petitioner is to appear in certain examinations (as a last chance) to clear engineering degree examination and if the petitioner is unable to appear for the examination, it will cause great prejudice and difficulty. It is pointed out that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents and the contraband was allegedly recovered are not in commercial quantities and therefore, the petitioner may be granted bail subject to conditions.

5.

I have heard the learned Public Prosecutor also.

6.

The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the grant of bail. The circumstances of the case appearing against the petitioner are pointed out. It is submitted that the petitioner was clearly involved in the matter and he cannot by stating that he was not a resident of the apartment in question escape from any liability. However, it is admitted that no criminal antecedents are reported against the petitioner.

7.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and taking in lenient view and considering the fact that the petitioner has been in custody from 26.04.2022 and also taking into account the contents of Annexure G and also taking note of the fact that no criminal antecedents are reported against the petitioner, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, subject to conditions.

8.

In the result, this application is allowed and it is directed that the petitioner shall be released on bail, subject to the following conditions:-

(i) The petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Jurisdictional Court;

(ii) The petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer in Crime No.350/2022 of Infopark Police Station, Ernakulam District on every Saturday at 11.00 am until further orders;

(iii) The petitioner shall not attempt to interfere with the investigation or to influence or intimidate any witness in Crime No.350/2022 of Infopark Police Station, Ernakulam District;

(iv) The petitioner shall surrender his passport before the Jurisdictional Court. If the petitioner does not have a passport, he shall execute affidavit to that effect and file the same before the said court within seven days of release on bail;

(v) The petitioner shall not involve in any other crime while on bail.

If any of the aforesaid conditions are violated, the investigating officer in Crime No.350/2022 of Infopark Police Station, Ernakulam District may file an application before the Jurisdictional Court, for cancellation of bail.