High CourtsSingle Bench

Siju Jayadevan vs State Of Kerala And Anr

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 19 November 2020 · Citation: (2020) 11 KL CK 0025

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ashok Menon, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 439 · Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Section 20(b)(ii)B, 37
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Bail Application No. 7499 Of 2020
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

24 paragraphs · 484 words
1.

The applicant is the 2nd accused in Crime No.22/2020 of Chadayamangalam Excise Range Office, Kollam, for having allegedly committed

offences punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)B of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.

2.

The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 13.10.2020 at about 3.15 p.m, at a place called Kanavankonam, the applicant and the 1st accused were

intercepted while they were transporting 4.150 kgs of ganja in a car bearing Reg.No.KL-24/Q 1071. Both of them were arrested and remanded to

judicial custody.

3.

It is submitted that the 1st accused had already been released on bail by the Sessions court. The applicant submits that he is only 27 years old, he is

the driver and he had no truck with the 1st accused in transporting the ganja. The vehicle belonged to the 1st accused and the ganja was allegedly

concealed in the stepney in the dickey of the car and the applicant was not even aware of the contraband concealed inside the car, and therefore he

seeks regular bail.

4.

Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned Public Prosecutor.

5.

The learned Public Prosecutor admits that the applicant and the 1st accused have no criminal antecedents. But it is stated that a statement has been

given by both of them that ganja was acquired by the 1st accused from Thiruvananthapuram and it has been transported by the 1st accused with the

help of the 2nd accused and that both of them had knowledge about transporting ganja. Hence, it was the deliberate act on the part of the applicant.

Hence, there is every possibility that in case he is released on bail, he may get involved in offences of similar nature.

6.

After having considered the arguments advanced by both sides, I find that the quantity involved is intermediary and hence the embargo under

Section 37 of the NDPS Act is also not attracted. The applicant does not have any criminal antecedents.

7.

In the result, the bail application is allowed and the applicant is directed to be released on bail on the execution of a bond for Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees

One lakh only) with two solvent sureties for the like amount each to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court and on the following conditions;

1.

He shall appear before the investigating officer on all Saturdays between 9 a.m, and 12 noon for a period of two months or till filing of the final

report whichever is earlier.

2.

He shall surrender his passport before the jurisdictional court and shall not go abroad except the permission granted by the jurisdictional court.

3.

He shall not attempt to influence or intimidate the witnesses.

4.

He shall not get involved in similar offences during the currency of the bail.

In the event of violating the bail conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to apply for cancellation of bail before the jurisdictional court.