Prabul J Jayakumar vs State Of Kerala

C.S.Dias, J

The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the second accused in Crime No.2198/2023 of the Neyyattinkara Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, registered against the accused for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 22(b) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short, ‘the Act’). The petitioner was arrested on 07.12.2023.

The prosecution case, in brief, is that: on 07.12.2023 at around 8.15 p.m, the accused were found in possession of 1.02 gms of MDMA, which was meant for the purpose of sale, and in violation of the provisions of the Act. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences.

Heard; Sri. Sayujya Radhakrishnan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. Neema T.V., the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusation levelled against him. He has been falsely implicated in the crime. The petitioner has been in judicial custody since 07.12.2023. The investigation in the case is complete and recovery has been effected. The petitioner is willing to abide by any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. She contended that the investigation is still in progress. She also submitted that the petitioner is involved in a similar offence for having been found in possession of small quantity of contraband article. If the petitioner is enlarged on bail, there is every likelihood of the petitioner committing a similar offence. She prayed that the application be dismissed.

After bestowing my anxious consideration to the facts, the materials placed on record, the rival submissions made across the Bar, particularly taking note of the fact that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 07.12.2023, the investigation in the case is practically complete, that the recovery has been effected and the contraband involved in the case is of an intermediate quantity, I am of the definite view that the petitioner's further detention is unnecessary. 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 alternate Saturdays between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m for a period of three months or till the final report is filed, 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 her 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 another [2020 (1) KHC 663].