Sabu @ Sachu @ Samson vs State Of Kerala

Mohammed Nias C.P., J.

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

The petitioner is the fourth accused in Crime No.654/1635 of Attingal Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram District, for having committed offences punishable under Sections 22C and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

The prosecution allegation is that, at about 23.30 hours on 10/07/2023, the first accused was found in possession and transporting 26.50 grams of MDMA and the second accused possessed 24.60 of MDMA, (a total quantity of 53.65 grams), Rs.65,900/- being the same proceeds and an electronic weighing machine, in a Motorcycle bearing registration No.KL 01-AW-4981 which was brought by the petitioner/fourth accused from Bangalore through the third accused in Kerala, for the purpose of same, near Chittanikkara Ayiravalli temple at Kizhuvilam Village, in contravention of the provisions of the NDPA Act, and thereby committed the above offence.

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

Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the contraband was recovered from A1, and A2 and A4 was implicated only on the basis of the confession of A3 and except for the said confession which is impermissible in law, there is no other material to connect him with the crime.

The learned Public prosecutor opposing the bail application submits that the investigation revealed that A3 went to Bangalore with A4 on several occasions and on each of their journeys, their mobile phones were switched off. There were money transactions with A3, the call data records between A3 and A4, the possibility of A4 being involved in interstate drug mafia, due to the non-cooperation of A3 during the investigation the source of contraband could not be found out. For the resources to be found out custody of the petitioner is required and also to reveal the modus operandi of the dealings, which shows that the customers were enticed through social media. The drug is being collected and deposited in places near electric posts etc. It is also pointed out that there are 11 antecedents against the petitioner.

.Having considered the rival contentions and also the specific role attributed to the A3 as is revealed from the report filed by the learned Public persecutor, the 11 antecedents reported against the petitioner, the need for more investigation to find out the source of the contraband, need for more scientific evidence and records to be collected, more witnesses to be questioned and statements recorded, the proof of frequent travel to Bangalore with A3, the confession statement of A3, the call data records and money transactions with A3, possibility of the involvement of A4 with the interstate drug mafia relations, the possibility of the witnesses being influenced or threatened and last but not the least, the commercial quantity attracting the rigour of S.37 of the Act, all of these militates against the grant of bail to the petitioner.

Accordingly, the bail application is dismissed.