Madhav K. Manoj vs State Of Kerala

This Bail Application is filed under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code was heard through Video Conference.

The petitioner is the third accused in crime No.890/2020 of Kalloorkadu Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioner and

others alleging offences punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(C), 27(A) and 29 of the NDPS Act.

The prosecution case is that, the accused person with an intention to amass money illegally by selling narcotic drugs, procured 17 packets of dry

ganga weighing 39.845 kilograms and kept the same in an iron shelf in a rented house which belongs to one Mr. Shiju George. The Police seized the

same on 25.11.2020 at 7.30 hrs from the said rented house. It is alleged that on subsequent investigation, it was revealed that the petitioner has

provided funds for the purchase of narcotic drugs to other accused in the crime. The petitioner was arrested on 22.03.2021.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is absolutely no

evidence to connect the petitioner with the above case. The counsel submitted that no contraband was seized from the possession of the petitioner.

The seizure of the contraband was from a rented house and the petitioner was not present at the time of the alleged seizure. The counsel also

submitted that the petitioner was arrested on 22.03.2021 and he is in custody from that day onwards. As per Annexure- A3 order, the 2nd accused

was granted bail by this Court. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. The Public Prosecutor submitted that huge quantity of ganga is

involved in this case and the quantity recovered is commercial quantity. The Public Prosecutor submitted that this Court may not release the petitioner

on bail, at this stage.

It is true that the allegation against the petitioner is very serious. But, this Court after considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case,

released the second accused on bail, as per order dated 17.02.2021 in B.A.No.1253 of 2021. This Court observed that the twin conditions to attract

the embargo under Section 37 of the NDPS Act is not attracted. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner in this case is also willing

to cooperate with the investigation. Moreover, the petitioner was not present at the time of the seizure and the main allegation is that the petitioner

provided funds for purchasing the contraband. It is a matter to be proved. I do not want to make any observation about the merits of the case. In the

light of the fact that the second accused is already released on bail as per Annexure A-3 order, I see no reason to take a different stand, as far as the

petitioner is concerned, who is the third accused in this case. I think the petitioner can be released on bail, on stringent conditions.

Moreover, the 2nd wave of COVID-19 is spreading in the country and the citizens are facing serious difficulties. In the state of Kerala, the 2nd

wave of the pandemic is creating lot of problems and even the day-to-day life of the citizens are affected. Everyday, about 25,000 people are tested

positive with COVID-19. In such circumstances, this Court has to consider this fact also while considering bail applications. The life is more important

than anything. Therefore, I am considering this bail application based on the above pandemic situation.

Moreover, considering the need to follow social distancing norms inside prisons so as to avert the spread of the novel Corona Virus Pandemic, the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Re: Contagion of COVID-19 Virus In Prisons case (Suo Motu Writ Petition(C) No.1 of 2020) and a Full Bench of this

Court in W.P(C)No.9400 of 2020 issued various salutary directions for minimizing the number of inmates inside prisons. These happened during the

1st wave of COVID-19 season.

Moreover, it is a well accepted principle that the bail is the rule and the jail is the exception. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chidambaram. P v

Directorate of Enforcement (2019 (16) SCALE 870), after considering all the earlier judgments, observed that, the basic jurisprudence relating to bail

remains the same inasmuch as the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception so as to ensure that the accused has the opportunity of securing

fair trial.

Considering the dictum laid down in the above decision and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Bail Application is allowed

with the following directions:

The petitioner shall be released on bail on 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 jurisdictional Court.

The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when required. The petitioner shall co-operate with the

investigation and shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise 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.

The petitioner shall not leave India without permission of the jurisdictional Court.

The petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

The petitioner shall strictly abide by the various guidelines issued by the State Government and Central Government with respect to keeping of

social distancing in the wake of Covid 19 pandemic.

If any of the above conditions are violated by the petitioner, the jurisdictional Court can cancel the bail in accordance to law, even though the bail is

granted by this Court.