AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
14 paragraphs · 262 wordsK.Haripal, J
The petitioner, the second accused in crime No.96 of 2021 of Vazhikkadavu Police Station is before Court seeking regular bail.
The crime was registered alleging offence under Sections 22(C) and 29 of the NDPS Act. The petitioner was arrested along with the first accused
on 23.03.2021 and since then is in custody.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is totally innocent in the case, he is running a 'rent a car' business, he has been roped in purely
for the reason that he had travelled in the car along with the first accused from whom 71 grams of MDMA was seized. According to him, the
investigation is over, he is in custody for the last 120 days and his further detention is not necessary.
The learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the application. According to her, eventhough the charge sheet had already been laid, the petitioner
cannot be released since he was always in the company of the first accused, from whom 71 grams of MDMA, which is a commercial quantity, was
seized. Later, on search, 26.9 grams of gold was also seized from the car. These items were procured from Bangalore and when arrested, they were
travelling all the way from Bangalore.
It is true that no offensive article was seized from the possession of the petitioner. But alleging conspiracy Section 29 is also invoked; now charge
sheet is filed. Embargo under Section 37 of the NDPS Act is attracted and therefore, the petitioner cannot be released on bail.
The application is dismissed.