Gokulan vs State Of Kerala

Bechu Kurian Thomas, J.

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

Petitioner is the accused in crime No.87 of 2023 of Kottayam West Police Station, Kottayam, alleging offences punishable under Sections 22(c) read with Section 8(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 .

According to the prosecution, on 12.01.2023, at about 10.30 P.M., accused was found in possession of 38.76 grams of MDMA and thereby committed the offences alleged.

Sri.Francis Assissi, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the contraband seized from the petitioner was not MDMA, but on chemical analysis, it was found to be Methamphetamine Chloride, the commercial quantity of which is 50 grams. Since the petitioner was allegedly found to be in possession of 38.76 grams and more than 150 days have elapsed from the date of arrest, petitioner ought to be released on bail, contended the learned counsel.

Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application and submitted that petitioner was arrested on 12.01.2023 and was remanded on the next day. It was further submitted that the contraband seized from the petitioner when subjected to analysis was found to be Methamphetamine Chloride. It was also submitted that if the petitioner is released on bail, taking note of the antecedents of having involving in two other crimes under the NDPS Act itself, especially Crime No.2533 of 2022, where petitioner is alleged to have attempted to sell MDMA in a tooth paste from inside the jail, petitioner ought not to be released on bail.

I have considered the rival contentions.

Petitioner is only 25 years in age. He has already undergone detention for more than 150 days. The contraband though initially assumed to be MDMA has been now found to be Methamphetamine Chloride. The quantity seized from the petitioner is therefore less than the commercial quantity. The restriction under Section 37 of the NDPS Act will not hence apply.

Even though the antecedents of the petitioner is not all that honourable, taking note of the period of detention already undergone and his young age, I am of the view that further detention of the petitioner is not necessary for the purpose of the case.

Accordingly, this application is allowed on the following conditions:-

(a) Petitioner shall be released on bail on him 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.

(b) Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required.

(c) Petitioner shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the witnesses; nor shall he tamper with the evidence.

(d) Petitioner shall not commit any similar offences while he is on bail.

(e) Petitioner shall not leave the State of Kerala without the permission of the Court having jurisdiction.

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