Firoz Hossain vs State Of Kerala

C.S.Dias, J

This application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the sole accused in Crime No.48/2024 of Changanacherry Excise Range Office, Kottayam, registered against him for allegedly committing the offence punishable under Section 21(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The petitioner was arrested on 10.04.2024.

The crux of the prosecution case is that: on 10.04.2024, at around 16.30 hours, the accused was found in conscious possession of 31.116 grams of brown sugar. The accused was arrested then and there at the spot with the contraband article. Thus, the accused has committed the above offence.

Heard; Sri. M.P.Madhavankutty, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt.Neema. T.V., the learned Public Prosecutor.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusations leveled against him. He has been falsely implicated in the crime. There is no material to substantiate the petitioner’s involvement in the crime. In any given case, the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last two months, the petitioner has no criminal antecedents, and the contraband involved in the case is of an intermediate quantity. Moreover, the investigation in the case is complete, and the recovery has been effected. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail. Hence, the application may be allowed.

The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. She submitted that the investigation in the case is in progress. She also stated that the petitioner is a native of West Bengal and does not have roots in the state of Kerala. If the petitioner is released on bail, there is every likelihood of him fleeing from justice. Hence, the application may be dismissed.

The prosecution allegation is that the petitioner was found in conscious possession of 31.116 grams of brown sugar. The fact remains that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last two months, the investigation in the case is practically complete, and the recovery has been effected. Moreover, the contraband involved in the case is of an intermediate quantity, and the petitioner does not have criminal antecedents. 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.

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 petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last two months, that the investigation in the case is practically complete, that the petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents, and that the recovery has been effected, I am of the view that the petitioner’s further detention is unnecessary. Hence, I hold 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 him executing a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh 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 Saturday between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m till the final report is laid. He shall also appear before the Investigating Officer on every alternative Saturday between 9 a.m and 11 a.m, till the conclusion of the trial in Crime No.48/2024;

(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 them 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) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction limits of the Court of Session, Kottayam, without the previous permission of the jurisdictional court.

(vi) The petitioner shall furnish his present and permanent addresses, and his 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 petitioner even while the petitioner is 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].