Irshad T.P 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.320/2024 of the Chevayur Police Station, Kozhikode, registered against the accused for allegedly committing the offence punishable under Section 22(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The petitioner was arrested on 11.04.2024.

The crux of the prosecution case is that: on 11.04.2024, the Detecting Officer received reliable information and a search was conducted in the house of the accused. In the search, 17.480 grams of MDMA was seized from the conscious possession of the accused. Thus, the accused has committed the above offence.

Heard; Sri. P.S. Binu, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. Seetha S., the learned Senior 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 are no material to substantiate that the petitioner's involvement in the crime. In any given case, the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last 60 days, the investigation in the case is practically complete, and recovery has been effected. Moreover, the petitioner has reliably learnt that, as per the chemical analysis report, the contraband involved in the case is Methamphetamine and not MDMA as alleged by the prosecution. Therefore, the contraband is of an intermediate quantity. Moreover, the petitioner does not have criminal antecedents. 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 stated that if the petitioner is released on bail, there is every likelihood of him committing similar offences. She made available the chemical analysis report submitted by the Chemical Examiners Laboratory Department, Kozhikode dated 25.4.2024, which substantiates that the contraband involved in the case is Methamphetamine and not MDMA. She also did not dispute the fact that the petitioner doesn't have any criminal antecedents.

The prosecution was lodged against the petitioner on the allegation that he was found in conscious possession of 17.480 grams of MDMA, which is a commercial quantity. Indisputably, as per the chemical analysis report referred to above, the contraband has turned out to be Methamphetamine and not MDMA. Therefore, the contraband is of an intermediate quantity. Furthermore, the petitioner does not have criminal antecedents.

On an anxious consideration of the facts, the rival submissions made across the Bar, and the materials placed on record, particularly considering the fact that the contraband alleged in the case is of an intermediate quantity, the petitioner does not have criminal antecedents, that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last 60 days, and the investigation in the case is practically complete, 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 for a period of two 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 (NCT of Delhi) and another [2020 (1) KHC 663].