High CourtsSingle Bench

Appadi Sivasankar vs State Of Kerala

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 14 August 2023 · Citation: (2023) 08 KL CK 0135

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ziyad Rahman A.A., J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Section 20(b), 20(b)(ii)(B), 29, 37
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Bail Application No. 6674 Of 2023
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 · 509 words

Ziyad Rahman A.A., J

1.

This is an application for regular bail.

2.

The petitioner is the first accused in Crime No.15/2023 of Excise Range Office, Thrissur. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 20(b), (ii) (B) and 29 of NDPS Act.

3.

The prosecution case is that, 03.05.2023 at about 7.30 am, the petitioner along with the second accused was found in possession of 11.635 kg of Ganja in an auto rickshaw driven by the second accused near Lenin Nagar bus stop at Thrissur, Kunnamkulam road and thereby committed the aforesaid offences.

4.

The crime was registered in such circumstances and the petitioner was arrested on 03.05.2023. Since then, he has been under judicial detention. This application for regular bail is submitted in such circumstances.

5.

Heard Sri.P.Mohammed Sabah, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. Sreeja V, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.

6.

I have carefully one through the records. The learned Public Prosecutor mainly opposes the said application by pointing out that the petitioner is a native of Andhra Pradesh and the chances of absconding if he released on bail are very high. However, it is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the investigation in this case is over and final report is submitted.

7.

After considering all the relevant materials including the period of detention the petitioner has already undergone, I am of the view that , bail can be granted to the petitioner. This is particularly because no criminal antecedents of the petitioner was brought to my notice and the quantity involved would come under the category of intermediate quantity, to which the rigour under Section 37 of the NDPS Act would not be applicable. As regards the apprehension voiced by the learned Public Prosecutor relating to the possibility of absconding. I am of the view that, appropriate conditions to ensure his presence can be incorporated, while granting bail.

Accordingly, this application is allowed and the petitioner is directed to be released on bail subject to the following conditions:-

i) The petitioner shall be released on bail on executing a bond for Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court. One of the sureties shall be a native of State of Kerala.

ii) The petitioner shall appear before the trial court as and when required.

iii) The petitioner shall not commit any offence of similar nature while on bail.

iv) The petitioner shall not make any attempt to contact any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or through any other person, or in any other way try to tamper with the evidence or influence any witnesses or other persons related to the investigation.

v) The petitioner shall not leave India without the permission of the trial Court.

In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation of bail, if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law.