Midhlaj vs State Of Kerala

C.S.Dias, J

The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by the first accused in Crime No.164/2024 of the Karunagapally Police Station, Kollam, registered against the accused for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(B) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The petitioner was arrested on 27.01.2024.

The essence of the prosecution case is that: on 27.01.2024, at around 9.15 hours, the accused 1 and 2, who are brothers, were found in possession of 3.101 kilo grams of ganja in their rented premises at Karunagapally. The contraband was seized from their possession. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences.

Heard; Sri. Omar Salim the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. Neema T. V., the learned Public Prosecutor.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that, petitioner is totally innocent of the accusations levelled against him. He has been falsely implicated in the crime. The petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents. The contraband that was allegedly seized from the accused is of an intermediate quantity. In any given case, the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 27.01.2024, that the investigation in the case is practically complete and recovery has been effected. Therefore, the petitioner’s further detention is not necessary. Hence, the bail application may be allowed.

The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. She submitted that the investigation of the case is still in progress. Nonetheless, she concealed to the fact that the petitioner does not have criminal antecedents and the contraband is of an intermediate quantity. Hence, she prayed that the application may be dismissed.

On an anxious consideration of the facts, the rival submissions made across the Bar and the materials placed on record, especially taking into account the fact that the petitioner does not have criminal antecedents, the contraband that was allegedly seized from the accused is of an intermediate quantity, that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 27.01.2024, that the recovery has been effected and the investigation in the case is practically complete and, I am of the definite view that, the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail. Hence, I am inclined to allow the bail application.

In the result, the application is allowed, by directing the petitioner to 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, 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 one month or till the final report is laid, 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 moved and entertained by 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].