Ponnudhurai vs State Of Kerala

Dr. Kauser Edappagath, J

This is the third bail application filed u/s 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking regular bail.

The applicant is the sole accused in Crime No.30/2022 of Amaravila Excise Range Office, Thiruvananthapuram. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(c), 8(c) and 25 of the NDPS Act.

The prosecution case, in short, is that, on 26.8.2022 at 10.35 a.m., the applicant was found in possession of 36 kilograms of ganja in contravention of the provisions of the NDPS Act and Rules and thereby committed the offence.

I have heard Sri.P.Mohamed Sabah, the learned counsel for the applicant and Smt. Nima Jacob, the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the case diary.

The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The counsel further submitted that no materials are on record to connect the applicant with the alleged crime; hence, he is entitled to get bail. The counsel also submitted that charge sheet has already been filed. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the alleged incident occurred as a part of the intentional criminal acts of the applicant, and he is not entitled to bail at this stage.

The applicant was remanded to judicial custody on 26.08.2022. A perusal of the case diary would reveal that the accusation against the applicant is very serious and it prima facie shows a premeditated criminal act on his part. The quantity involved is a commercial quantity. The accused was found in unauthorized possession of 36 kgs of ganja inside a carton concealed beneath diapers inside a Bolero Pickup Van bearing Regn.No.TN-84-Z-1936. There was nobody else in the car other than the applicant. The applicant could not explain how the contraband happened to be in the van. Since the quantity involved is a commercial quantity, the jurisdiction of this Court to grant bail is circumscribed by the provisions of Section 37 of NDPS Act. Bail can be granted in a case where there are reasonable ground for believing that the accused is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. The applicant has not been able to point out the existence of any such facts and circumstances as are sufficient to justify recording a finding that he is not guilty of the offences charged. The fact that the charge sheet has been filed is not a ground to grant bail when the rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act is applicable. Having considered the submission and after having gone through the materials on record and also the gravity of the offence, I am of the view that the applicant cannot be released on bail at this stage. Earlier two bail applications filed by the applicant were dismissed by this Court. I do not find any change in circumstances to grant bail.

The bail application, accordingly, is dismissed.