High CourtsSingle Bench

Nidhin vs State Of Kerala

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 30 April 2024 · Citation: (2024) 04 KL CK 0245

HON’BLE JUDGES
P. G. Ajithkumar, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 439 · Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Section 20(b)(II)(B), 27A , 29, 60(3)
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Bail Application No. 2515 Of 2024
Ask AI about this case

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

15 paragraphs · 466 words

P. G. Ajithkumar, J

1.

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

2.

The petitioner is the 1st accused in Sessions Case No.229 of 2024. He allegedly had committed the offences punishable under Section 20(b)(II)(B), 27A , 29 and 60(3) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

3.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

4.

The prosecution allegations are the following:

At about 8.10 p.m on 12.12.2023, 1.540 kilograms of ganja was seized from the house of the petitioner. They possessed the contraband for the purpose of sale.

5.

The petitioner would contend that he did not involve in the alleged crime and without any material or evidence, he has been implicated in the crime. He is innocent. The investigation in the matter has been progressed considerably and there is no reason or justification for his further detention.

6.

The learned Public Prosecutor would submit that considering the seriousness of the offence and the possibility of interfering with the investigation by the petitioner in the event of his release on bail, this petition deserve only to be dismissed.

7.

The petitioner along with the 2nd accused filed Crl.M.P.No. 619 of 2024. The trial court allowed that petition in part. The 2nd accused was granted bail. The petitioner was denied bail holding that he is a habitual offender. He has involved in two other similar cases and therefore release of him on bail is a threat to the society inasmuch as he would involve in similar offences again.

8.

The anguish expressed by the trial court is reasonable. However, having the seizure been from the house and the 2nd accused granted bail, it is only appropriate to extend the same benefit to the petitioner also. The petitioner has involved in two other similar cases and therefore there must be a watch to guard against his involving in any offence of similar type in future.

In the result, the bail application is allowed and the petitioner is granted bail on his/her executing a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only), with two solvent sureties for the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the trial court, subject to the following conditions:

(i) He shall not influence or intimidate witnesses or tamper with evidence;

(ii) He shall appear before the investigating officer every Wednesday between 3.00 p.m and 4.00 p.m until otherwise ordered by the trial court; and

(iii) During the bail period, he shall not get involved in any offence.

In case of breach of the bail conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to apply for cancellation of the bail before the jurisdictional court. Registration of a new crime against the petitioner will result immediate cancellation of his bail.