Muhammed Raees vs State Of Kerala

Mohammed Nias C.P., J

This application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking regular bail.

The petitioner is the second accused in Crime No.592/2023 of Kasaba Police Station, Palakkad District for having committed offences punishable under Sections 22(c), 25 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

The prosecution case is that on 01.07.2023 at about 16.30 hours, three accused were found travelling in a Jeep bearing registration No.KL-75-B-6895 at Kurudikkad Junction, Palakkad. The police party headed by the Sub Inspector of Police, Kasaba Police Station, stopped the Jeep and made a search. A vanity bag was recovered under the seat on the left side of the driver's seat. In the vanity bag, two packets having a total weight of 62. 3611 grams of MDMA, a psychotropic substance, were found. The contraband article and the vehicle were seized, along with other articles found in the vehicle. Three accused were arrested, and they were remanded to judicial custody. The second accused, who filed this application, contended that he was acquainted with the first accused and went to Bangalore to meet one of the relatives. When he was travelling back to Thrissur, accused No.1 told him that she had to travel to Kerala for an emergency. She did not get any travel tickets and requested the petitioner to allow her to travel along with him. The petitioner is not aware of the articles and other baggage carried by the first accused, nor does he have any knowledge or connection with regard to the contraband, thereby committing the above offence.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would say that the petitioner is totally innocent and falsely implicated with ulterior motives. At any rate, he points out that the petitioner has been in custody since 01/07/2022, and continued custody of the petitioner is unnecessary. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that there was no seizure as alleged by the prosecutor, and the same will be seen from the CCTV of the police station concerned where the vehicle along with the accused 1 and 2 were taken. Though an application was filed to produce the CCTV footage, the application was dismissed, recording the fact that no CCTV footage was available. He would contend that he is innocent of the allegations against him and that it is to protect somebody else that he was implicated.

The Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application, filing a report.

The report states apart from the seizure from accused Nos. 1 and 2 from the bag kept in the vehicle as aforesaid, there are other materials to connect the accused with the seizure. There were calls between A1 and A3; A2 and A3 had stayed together in Bangalore and also in Ernakulam, and A1 was the visitor there, commercial quantity is involved, and A3 has not been arrested yet, and therefore, releasing this accused now would derail the investigation. After considering the rival submission ,it is to be noted that there was a seizure from the vehicle used by the petitioner herein along with the first accused, there is evidence to show that the accused persons stayed together at both Bangalore and Ernakulam, there are phone calls between the accused, the third accused is not yet arrested, commercial quantity is involved inviting the rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. For all these reasons, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

The bail application is accordingly dismissed.