Sirajudheen vs State Of Kerala

Raja Vijayaraghavan V, J

The above captioned application seeking regular bail is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure( “Codeâ€​ for short ) by the

1st accused in Crime No.323 of 2021 of Ernakulam Town North Police Station registered under Sections 22(b) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and

Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

The gist of the prosecution allegation is that a search was conducted inside a room in hotel Royal Park where the petitioner herein and the 2nd

accused were staying on 23.04.2021 at 10.40 p.m. It is alleged that the accused were found having in their possession 4.047 gms of MDMA in clear

violation of the provisions of the NDPS Act, 1985. The contraband was seized and the accused were arrested.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been in custody from 23.4.2021 onwards. According to the learned

counsel, the search and seizure were effected in clear violation of the mandatory formalities. The contraband which was allegedly in the possession of

the accused falls within the intermediate quantity category and hence the mandate under Section 37 of the Act would not apply. It is further submitted

that the 2nd accused has already been enlarged on bail. The learned counsel would urge that the fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the

presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. He would vehemently urge that any

imprisonment before conviction has a substantial punitive content and which has time and again been disapproved by this Court as well as the Apex

Court.

The learned Public Prosecutor has very strenuously opposed the prayer. It is submitted that the materials collected till date clearly links the

petitioner with the crime. The evils of narcotics and other psychotropic substances are highlighted to persuade this court to deny bail to the petitioner.

I have considered the submissions advanced and have perused the records which are made available. There cannot be any manner of doubt that

the accusation against the petitioner is extremely grave. At the same time, the case records reveal that the investigation has made much headway.

The 2nd accused has already been enlarged on bail as well. In the facts and circumstances, I am of the view that further incarceration of the

petitioner in custody is not warranted. By imposing stringent conditions the applicant can now be enlarged on bail.

In the result, this application will stand allowed, however, the same shall be subject to the following conditions.

The applicant shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like

sum to the satisfaction of the court having jurisdiction. The above order shall be subject to the following conditions:

1). The applicant shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Saturdays between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m., for a period of two months or till final report is filed,

whichever is earlier.

2). He shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the witnesses; nor shall he tamper with the evidence.

3). He shall not commit any similar offence while on bail.

In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation, if any, and

pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law.