Shyam Kumar vs State Of Kerala

C.S.Dias, J

The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the first accused in Crime No.1583/2023 of the Sakthikulangara Police Station, Kollam, registered against the accused (three in number) for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(B) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short, ‘the Act’). The petitioner was arrested on 27.12.2023.

The prosecution case is that: on 27.12.2023, at about 21.30 hours, the accused 1 and 2 were found transporting 2.025 kg of Ganja in a car that was driven in a rash and negligent manner, which was purchased from the third accused for the purpose of sale. The accused were apprehended with the contraband articles from the spot. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences.

Heard; Sri. Kiran Lal. M, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. Seetha.S. 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. A reading of Annexure A1 FIR and A2 remand report would substantiate that the petitioner has not committed the offences alleged against him. Moreover, as per Annexure A3 medical certificate, the petitioner’s wife is suffering from a locomotor disability. Even though the petitioner had moved an application for bail before the Court of Session, the same was dismissed by Annexure A4 order. The contraband that was allegedly seized from the accused is of an intermediate quantity. The petitioner has been in custody since 27.12.2023. The investigation in the case is complete, and the recovery has been effected. The petitioner’s further detention is not necessary. Hence, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. She contended that the petitioner has criminal antecedents. He is involved in two other crimes of similar nature for having been found in possession of an intermediate quantity of the same contraband article. Even though the investigation in the case is complete, the same cannot be a ground to release the petitioner on bail because there is every likelihood of the petitioner committing similar offences. Hence, the application may be dismissed.

Indisputably, the petitioner was arrested on 27.12.2023. The investigation in the case is practically complete, and the recovery has been effected. Even going by the antecedents alleged against the petitioner, the same are crimes registered against the petitioner for allegedly being in possession of an intermediate quantity of the contraband articles. The contraband involved in the present case is also of an intermediate quantity. Therefore, the rigour under Section 37 of the Act will not apply.

On an anxious consideration of the facts, the rival submissions made across the Bar, the material placed on record, and particularly taking note of the fact that the contraband that was allegedly seized from the petitioner is of an intermediate quantity and that the investigation in the case is practically complete, I am of the definite view that the petitioner’s further detention is not necessary. Hence, I am inclined to allow the bail application, but subject to the stringent condition, especially that the petitioner shall not get involved in any offence during the pendency of the above proceedings.

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 Fifty Thousand 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 Saturday between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m till the conclusion of the proceedings in the above crime. 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 of Delhi and another [2020 (1) KHC 663].