Muhammed Rafeek vs State Of Kerala

Mohammed Nias C.P., J.

This is the second application for regular bail filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The petitioner is the seventh accused in Crime No. 117/2023 of Kollengode police station, Palakkad district alleging offences punishable under Sections 22(c) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

The prosecution case is that accused Nos. 1 to 5 were found in possession of 88.880 grams of MDMA in a vehicle bearing registration No.KL 02 BC 8777 at a place called Valluvakundu on a Public road thereby committing the above offence.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor were heard.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he was not initially arrayed as an accused and it is only later based on the confession of the co-accused that he was arrayed as the accused. He submitted that there was no recovery effected from the petitioner and that he hails from Karnataka and comes to Palakkad only for his business. Petitioner has been in custody since 17.7.2023, and therefore his further detention is not required and thus seeks bail.

Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application and has filed a report in which it is stated that accused 1 to 5 got the contraband from A7 and it is also stated that in the investigation the details of the call data records of the accused shows that A1 had called A7 several times on the date of the incident and also on the following days. Based on a secret information that the accused was in Bangalore, a police party went to Bangalore and picked him up on 157.2023 and he had also confessed to the crime while recording the confession. The bank transaction details also showed the first accused sent money to the bank account of A7 on the date of the incident and also on the following days. The bank transaction statement of A1 containing the cash transaction information of the Kollam SBI Branch was collected and when it was checked it was seen that some transactions were done not through the account of A7, but through the account of the mother of A7. Learned Public Prosecutor submits there is enough involvement of the petitioner in the crime and that he should not be enlarged on bail.

After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor, it is clear that the petitioner was arrested only on 17.7.2023, whereas, the incident took place on 13.2.2023. It was only on investigation and the evidence collected that the role of A7 was found that accused 1 to 5 had got the contraband from A7 and the scientific evidence like the call data records and the bank transaction details showed transfer of money between A1 and A7 besides several calls on the date of the incident and also on the following days. It was based on secret information that the accused was in Bangalore that the police party went to Bangalore and picked up A7 from Bangalore on 15.7.2023. It cannot be said that the petitioner has no involvement based on the evidence stated above. Since commercial quantity is involved, the rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act also applies. I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, more so when there is no change in circumstances.

Accordingly, the bail application is dismissed.