Niyas.C vs State Of Kerala

C. S. Dias, J

The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the 1st accused in Crime No.8/2024 of the Excise Enforcement and Anti Narcotic Special Squad, Malappuram, registered against the accused (two in number), for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)B and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [for short, ‘the Act’]. The petitioner was arrested on 06.02.2024.

The essence of the prosecution allegation is that, on 06.02.2024 at about 21.00 hrs, the accused 1 and 2 were found transporting 6.03 kgms of ganja in an autorickshaw bearing registration No.KL-55B-9780. The accused were arrested then and there at the spot with the contraband articles. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences.

Heard Sri.V. Harikrishnan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.C.S.Hrithwik, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusations levelled against him. He has been falsely implicated in the crime. In any given case, the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 06.02.2024, the investigation in the case is practically complete and recovery has been effected. Moreover, the contraband involved in the case is of an intermediate quantity. Therefore, the rigour under Section 37 of the Act does not apply. Hence, the application may be allowed.

The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. It is submitted that the investigation in the case is in progress. Nonetheless, he conceded to the fact that the contraband involved in the case is of an intermediate quantity and the petitioner is a person without any criminal antecedents.

After bestowing my anxious consideration to the facts, the rival submissions made across the Bar, the materials placed on record, particularly taking note of the fact that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 06.02.2024, the contraband involved in the case is of an intermediate quantity, that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents, that the recovery has been effected and investigation in the case is practically complete, I am of the view that petitioner’s continued detention is not necessary. Hence, the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail.

In the result, the application is allowed, by directing the petitioner to be released on bail on him executing a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh 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 two months 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 them 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 filed and entertained before 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 Anr. [2020 (1) KHC 663].