Ashique vs State Of Kerala

C.S.Dias, J

The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the sole accused in Crime No.66/2023 of the Excise Enforcement and Anti Narcotic Special Squad, Thrissur, alleging him to have committed the offences under Sections 22(b) and 60(3) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short, the Act). The petitioner was arrested on 22.11.2023.

The gist of the prosecution case is that; on 22.11.2023, at about 03.30 p.m, the accused was arrested with 0.024 gram LSD Stamp while he was transporting the same in a car bearing registration No.KL-32-K-9722 from Kainoor Village at Kainoor Taluk. Thus, the petitioner has committed the above offences.

Heard; Sri.K.V. Sabu, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. T.V.Neema, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusation levelled against him. The petitioner has been in judicial custody since 22.11.2023. The petitioner has no criminal antecedents. The petitioner is willing to abide by any stringent condition imposed by this Court and cooperate with the investigation. Hence, the petitioner may be released on bail.

The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. Nonetheless, she submitted that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 22.11.2023 and he has no criminal antecedents. She also conceded to the fact that the contraband allegedly seized from the petitioner is of intermediate quantity. However, she prayed that the application may be dismissed.

Indisputably, the petitioner was arrested on 22.11.2023. The prosecution allegation is that the petitioner was found in possession of 0.024 gram LSD Stamp, which is of intermediate quantity.

In Dheeraj Kumar Shukla v. The State of Uttar Pradesh [2023 KHC 6545], the Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically held that the rigour under Section 37 of the NDPS Act can be diluted, if the accused has no criminal antecedents.

After bestowing my anxious consideration to the facts and materials placed on record, particularly the fact that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 22.11.2023, the contraband allegedly seized from the petitioner is of intermediate quantity and that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents and further that the investigation in this case is practically complete, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail.

In the result, the application is allowed, by directing the petitioner to be released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand 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 alternate Saturdays between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m for a period of three months or till the final report is filed, 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 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) Applications 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 of Delhi and another [2020 (1) KHC 663].