Biju Joseph vs State Of Kerala

Mohammed Nias C.P., J

This application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking regular bail.

The petitioner is the fourth accused in Crime No.9/2019 of Excise Circle Office, Thiruvananthapuram, for having committed offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(C), 20(b)(ii)(B), 27A and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

The prosecution case is that at about 5.15 p.m., on 22.06.2019, in furtherance of the criminal conspiracy hatched by the accused persons, the first accused was found in possession of 20.064 Kilograms of Hashish Oil, 220 grams of Charase and 2.500 kilograms of ganja, for the purpose of sale . At Vazhamuttom Junction, Thiruvallam Village, in contravention of the provisions of the NDPS Act, 1985. During the investigation, it was revealed that the petitioner collected the contraband articles from Andra Pradesh, thereby committing the above offence.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would say that the petitioner is totally innocent and falsely implicated with ulterior motives. At any rate, he points out that the petitioner has been in custody since 19/07/2022, and continued custody of the petitioner is unnecessary.

Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application, stating that further investigation after the arrest of the first accused clearly showed that the 4th accused/ the petitioner herein obtained the contraband from Andra Pradesh and handed it over to A1. There is proof of 38 calls between A1 and A4 from one number between 10/04/2019 and 26/05/2019 and 61 calls between the dates 27/05/2019 and 11/06/2019 from another number. It is also shown that he already has an antecedent under the NDPS Act in which he was convicted and was in Central Jail in Andra Pradesh, from where the formal arrest of the petitioner was recorded in this case.

Having considered rival submissions, the role of the 4th accused is evident from the calls between A1 and A4. The involvement of the petitioner, namely the purchase of the contraband from Andra Pradesh and handing it over to A1, is also established at least prima facie, the fact that he is already convicted in another NDPS case in the State of Andra Pradesh and that it was while he was serving the sentence that formal arrest of the petitioner was recorded. All these facts dis-entitles the petitioner from getting bail in this case, in a case where commercial quantity is involved and where the rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act applies. I do not find any merit in the bail application, the same is accordingly dismissed.

The bail application is accordingly dismissed.