Shemeer A.K And Ors vs State Of Kerala

Applications for regular bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. The applicants in B.A. No.1606/2021 are accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 while the applicant in

B.A. No.1464/2021 is the 3rd accused in Crime No.687/2020 of Maradu Police Station for having allegedly committed offences punishable under

Section 22C r/w Section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 17.12.2020 the applicants were allegedly travelling in a car bearing registration No.KL 46 U 9616 with

packets of Mescaline, which was subsequently identified as Methamphetamine and they were attempting to handover the said packets to accused

Nos.5 to 9, when the police patrolling party closed on them. The car was allegedly parked near the gate of Vismaya Apartment, Vyttila. On seeing the

police party, one of the accused threw two packets and on the police party reached there, they found two packets lying under the street light. The

person who had allegedly thrown the articles under the street light was not identified.

The applicants state that they are innocent and the allegations are not true. The car in which they were travelling was thoroughly searched and no

suspicious article or contraband or any other incriminating substance was seized from the car. Accused 5 to 9 had approached the Session Court and

were granted bail. The bail applications filed the applicants were rejected by the court. The applicants state that they are similarly placed as accused

Nos.5 to 9 and that there has been nothing incriminating against the applicants and therefore they are entitled to bail.

Heard the learned counsels appearing for the applicants and the learned Public Prosecutor.

It is pertinent to note that the FIR was initially registered under Section 102 of Cr.P.C., which indicated that the police suspected commission of

crime, but what crime was not revealed at that point in time. Subsequently, the applicants were all taken into custody, questioned and the packets

which were found under the street light was opened from the scene of occurrence and found to be containing something suspicious. They were all

taken to the police station and the mahazar was prepared from the police station about 14 hours later. There is no materials collected by the police

even with the help of the CCTV camera which was available, to indicate that accused Nos.1 to 4 had come there to sell or hand over the contraband

articles seized to accused Nos.5 to 9 as is alleged by the prosecution. Under the circumstances, it will have to be held at least for the meanwhile that

there is no incriminating materials collected by the prosecution against the applicants. They are no way different from accused Nos.5 to 9. It is only an

assumption that they had come there to sell or handover the contraband articles seized to accused Nos.5 to 9 and that they were purchasers of the

articles. Under the circumstances, I find that there are no justification in declining bail to the applicants herein. There are reasonable grounds to

believe that they are not guilty and they have no antecedents. There is no possibility of their committing similar offences while on bail. The twin

conditions required under Section 37 of the NDPS Act is satisfied. Hence the applicants are directed to be released on bail on execution of bond for

Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees one lakh only) each with two solvent sureties, each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court and on

following conditions:-

(i) They shall appear before the investigating officer on all Saturdays between 9 a.m. and 12 noon for a period of three months or till the filing of final

report whichever is earlier.

(ii) They shall not get involved in similar cases during the currency of the bail.

(iii) They shall not tamper with evidence, intimidate or influence the witnesses .

In case of violation of the bail conditions, the prosecution is at liberty to move for cancellation of the bail before the jurisdictional court.