Lijin vs State Of Kerala

C.S.Dias, J

The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by the 3rd accused in Crime No.1766/2023 of the Attingal Police Station, Thiruvnanthapuram, registered against the accused (five in number) for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 22(c) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short, “Act”). The petitioner was arrested on 30.07.2023.

The essence of the prosecution case is that: on 30.07.2023 around 4.00 a.m., the accused were found travelling in a car bearing registration No.DL-4-CNE-3652 and were found in possession of 89.70 grams of MDMA. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences.

Heard;  Sri.A.  Chandra  Babu,  the  learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. Seetha. S., the learned Public Prosecutor.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusations leveled against him. Even going by the prosecution case, the contraband article was seized from the pocket of the first accused. There is nothing to connect the petitioner with the first accused. The petitioner has been in judicial custody since 30.07.2023. The investigation in the case is practically complete. The continued detention of the petitioner is unnecessary. Hence, the petitioner may be released on bail.

The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. She contended that the five accused, including the petitioner, were found in a vehicle from where the contraband was seized, and Section 29 has been incorporated. Since the contraband is of commercial quantity, the rigour under Section 37 of the Act will apply. Moreover, the petitioner has criminal antecedents and was involved in two other crimes in 2013 and 2017. Hence, the application may be dismissed.

Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, regulates the grant of bail in cases involving offences under the Act. It is profitable to extract Section 37, which reads as follows:

“37.  Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable.—

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (2 of 1974),—

(a) every offence punishable under this Act shall be cognizable;

(b) no person accused of an offence punishable for offences under Section 19 or Section 24 or Section 27-A and also for offences involving commercial quantity shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless—

(i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and

(ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.

(2) The limitations on granting of bail specified in clause

(b) of sub-section (1) are in addition to the limitations under the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (2 of 1974) or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail.”

A plain reading of the above provision demonstrates that a person accused of an offence under Sections 19, 24 and 27-A of the Act and also involving commercial quantity shall not be released on bail unless the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accused is not guilty and is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. Therefore, the power to grant bail to a person accused of committing an offence under the Act is subject to provisions contained under Sec.439 of the Code and parameters referred to above and on the accused satisfying the twin conditions under Sec.37 of the Act.

While interpreting ‘reasonable grounds’ prescribed under Section 37 of the Act, the Honourable Supreme Court in Union of India v. Shiv Shanker Kesari [(2007) 7 SCC 798] held as follows:

“7. The expression used in Section 37(1)(b)(ii) is “reasonable grounds”. The expression means something more than prima facie grounds. It connotes substantial probable causes for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offence charged and this reasonable belief contemplated in turn points to existence of such facts and circumstances as are sufficient in themselves to justify recording of satisfaction that the accused is not guilty of the offence charged”.

In  Union of India v. Mohd. Nawaz Khan [(2021) 10 SCC 100], the Honourable Supreme Court, after referring to a host of judicial precedents on Section 37 of the Act, observed that:

“23. Based on the above precedent, the test which the High Court and this Court are required to apply while granting bail is whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accused has not committed an offence and whether he is likely to commit any offence while on bail. Given the seriousness of offences punishable under the NDPS Act and in order to curb the menace of drug-trafficking in the country, stringent parameters for the grant of bail under the NDPS Act have been prescribed”.

It is also well-settled that in addition to applying the rigour under Section 37 of the Act, the courts are also bound to follow the general parameters under Section 439 of the Code, while considering a bail application.

In Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee [(2010) 14 SCC 496], the Honourable Supreme Court has laid down the broad parameters for Courts while dealing with bail applications by holding as follows:

“9.xxx xxx xxx However, it is equally incumbent upon the High Court to exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic principles laid down in a plethora of decisions of this Court on the point. It is well settled that, among other circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are:

(i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence;

(ii) nature and gravity of the accusation;

(iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction;

(iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail;

(v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused;

(vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated;

(vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and

(viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail”.

On a scrutiny of the materials placed on record and the law referred to above, and taking into account the nature, seriousness, and gravity of the offences levelled against the petitioner, that the investigation in the case is in progress, that the contraband article is of commercial quantity, and further that the petitioner has criminal antecedents, I do not find any reasonable ground to hold that the petitioner is not guilty of the offence alleged against him and that he is not likely to commit a similar offence, if he is enlarged on bail.

Therefore, I hold that the rigour under Section 37 of the Act applies to the facts and circumstances of the case. The application is meritless and is only to be dismissed.

Resultantly, the application is dismissed.