Binodlet vs State Of Kerala

C.S.Dias, J

This application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the accused 1 and 2 in Crime No. 686/2024 of Kuttippuram

Police Station, Malappuram, registered against them for allegedly committing the offence punishable under Section 20(b) (ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs

and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The petitioners were arrested on 21.03.2024.

The crux of the prosecution case is that: on 21.03.2024, at around 14.10 hours, the accused 1 and 2 were found in conscious possession of 2.180 kg

of Ganja for the purpose of sale. The accused were arrested then and there at the spot with the contraband article. Thus, the accused have committed

the above offence.

Heard; Sri. Manas P. Hameed, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Smt.Seetha.S., the learned Public Prosecutor.

The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are totally innocent of the accusations levelled against them. They have been

falsely implicated in the crime. There is no material to substantiate the petitioners’ involvement in the crime. In any given case, the petitioners

have been in judicial custody for the last 100 days, the contraband involved in the case is of an intermediate quantity, the investigation in the case is

complete, and the final report has been laid. Hence, the application may be allowed.

The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. She submitted that the first petitioner is a person with criminal antecedents since he is

involved in a similar crime. She also stated that the petitioners are natives of West Bengal and do not have roots in the state of Kerala. If the

petitioners are released on bail, there is every likelihood of them fleeing from justice. Hence, the application may be dismissed.

The prosecution allegation against the accused is that they were found in conscious possession of 2.180 kg of ganja. The fact remains that the

petitioners have been in judicial custody for the last 100 days, the investigation in the case is complete, and the final report has been laid. It is well

settled in Hussainara Khatoon (I) v.Home Secy., State of Bihar [(1980) 1 SCC 81] that merely because a person does not have roots in a state, the

same shall not be treated as a ground to deny bail to that person.

In Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, [2012 1 SCC 40], the Honourable Supreme Court has categorically held that the fundamental postulate of criminal

jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, until a person is found guilty. Any imprisonment prior to conviction is to be considered as punitive and it

would be improper on the part of the Court to refuse bail solely on the ground of former conduct.

In Dataram Singh v. State of U.P., [(2018) 3 SCC 22], the Honourable Supreme Court observed that grant of bail is the rule and putting a person in

jail is an exception. Even though the grant of bail is entirely the discretion of the court, it has to be evaluated based on the facts and circumstances of

each case and the discretion has to be exercised in a judicious and compassionate manner.

The principle that bail is the rule and jail is an exception, is on the touch stone of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The right to bail cannot be

denied merely due to the sentiments of the society.

After bestowing my anxious consideration to the facts, the rival submissions made across the Bar, and the materials placed on record, especially

on considering the fact that the contraband involved in the case is of an intermediate quantity, that the petitioners have been in judicial custody for the

last 100 days, that the investigation in the case is complete, and that the final report has been laid, I am of the view that the petitioners' further

detention is unnecessary. Hence, I hold that the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail.

In the result, the application is allowed, by directing the petitioners to be released on bail on them executing a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh

only) each 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 petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer on every third Saturday between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m till the conclusion of the trial in

Crime No.686/2024. He shall also appear before the Investigating Officer as and when directed;

(ii) The petitioners 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 them from disclosing such facts to the court or to any Police Officer or tamper with the evidence in any manner, whatsoever;

(iii) The petitioners shall not commit any offence while they are on bail;

(iv) The petitioners shall surrender their passports, if any, before the court below at the time of execution of the bond. If they have no passports, they

shall file affidavits to the effect before the court below on the date of execution of the bond;

(v) The petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction limits of the Court of Session, Malappuram, without the previous permission of the jurisdictional court.

(vi) The petitioners shall furnish their present and permanent addresses, and their mobile phone number to the court below and the Investigating

Officer;

(vii) 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.

(viii) Applications for deletion/modification of the bail conditions shall be moved and entertained by the court below.

(ix) 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 petitioners even while the petitioners are 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].