Rafeek. P. vs State Of Kerala

The applicant is the 2nd accused in Crime No.06 of 2020 of Neeleswaram Excise Range, Kasargod, for having allegedly committed offences

punishable under Sections 20(b) (ii) (c) and 29 of the NDPS Act. The prosecution case, in brief, is this:

On 28.09.2020 at about 9.00 AM, the applicant along with the 1st accused were apprehended by the Excise party , while they were travelling in a

car bearing registration No.KL-14-U-8889, along the National Highway towards Neeleswaram. The Excise party intercepted the vehicle and on

conducting the search 5.054 Kgs of ganja was recovered from the car. Subsequent statements given by the accused including the applicant, they

admitted that they were transporting a part of the ganja, which was in their possession and the balance 20 Kgs of ganja is stored in the house of the

1st accused at 'Anangoor' and consequently, the Excise party reached the house of the 1st accused at about 12.55 PM and recovered 20 Kgs of ganja

from his house. The applicant had allegedly abeted the 1st accused to commit the offence and stole the ganja in his house. Under the circumstances,

the applicants were arrayed as accused in the crime.

The applicant states that he is innocent and the allegations are not true. The car from which the ganja was seized belonging to the 1st accused and

he was travelling along with the 1st accused and he had nothing to do with the transportation or storing of the ganja. It is further stated that it is the 1st

accused, who had given the confession statement regarding the storing of ganja in his house and consequently, it was recovered from his house. The

applicant therefore, has nothing to do with the storing of ganja in the house of the 1st accused. Therefore, pleads that he may be released on bail.

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicant and the learned Public Prosecutor. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the embargo

under Section 37 of the NDPS Act is applicable and therefore the applicant cannot be released on bail. The applicant would contend that only 5 Kgs

of ganja was recovered when he was in the company of the 1st accused, when they were intercepted by the Excise party. And, therefore, it is not a

commercial quantity of ganja that was seized from him. And, moreover, 20 Kgs of ganja was seized exclusively from the house of the 1st accused.

And, therefore he is not answerable to that. Whether the fact that the applicant has nothing to do with the storing of ganja in the house of the 1st

accused is a matter of evidence. Section 29 has also been incorporated. And, therefore, it is not possible to consider the arguments of the learned

counsel appearing for the applicant on that aspect.

The application is therefore, dismissed in view of the embargo under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.