High CourtsSingle Bench

Sumod vs State Of Kerala

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 27 April 2023 · Citation: (2023) 04 KL CK 0195

HON’BLE JUDGES
Viju Abraham, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Section 20(b)(ii)C, 29
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Bail Application No. 3256 Of 2023
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

14 paragraphs · 561 words

Viju Abraham, J

1.

This is an application for regular bail.

2.

The petitioner is accused No.3 in Crime No.112/2022 of Malappuram Police Station alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)C and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances(NDPS) Act.

3.

The prosecution allegation is that, on 16.02.2022, at 10.35 pm, at Kadungooth, on Perinthalmanna road, accused Nos. 1 and 2 were found to have transported 22.125 Kgs of ganja in a car and on the interrogation of the 1st accused, he gave statement that ganja was purchased by him and the petitioner from Andhra Pradesh and thus the accused committed the aforesaid offence.

4.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was arrested on 18.02.2022, and he is in custody since then. Petitioner submits that he has been falsely implicated in the above said crime and he was arrayed as an accused only on the confession statement of the 1st accused and that there are no other materials to connect him with the alleged offence. Petitioner submits that he has no other criminal antecedents. Petitioner relies on Annexure-A4 order on this Court whereby accused Nos.1 and 2 have already been granted bail.

5.

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

6.

The learned Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the application for bail mainly contending that the petitioner has an active role in the commission of the said offence and there is sufficient materials collected to connect the petitioner with the alleged offence.

7.

By Annexure-A4 order this Court has granted bail to accused Nos.1 and 2, taking into consideration the fact that they have no other criminal antecedents and that they have been in custody for long and the trial of the case is not yet started and that the quantity of contraband involved is not a huge or sizable quantity.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and taking into consideration that the petitioner is similarly situated to that of the petitioners in Annexure-A4 order, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. In the result, the bail application is allowed. It is directed that the petitioner shall be released on bail, subject to the following conditions:

(i) The petitioner shall execute bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court;

(ii) Petitioner shall not intimidate the witnesses or tamper with evidence. He shall co-operate with the investigation and shall be available for trial. He shall visit the Investigating Officer on every Monday in between 9 a.m and 12 noon for a period of two months and also appear before the Investigating Officer as and when directed.

(iii) The  petitioner  shall  not  leave  India without prior permission of the jurisdictional court;

(iv) The petitioner shall surrender his passport, if any, within 7 days from the date of his release, before the trial court. If he has no passport, he shall file an affidavit in this regard on the date of execution of the bond or within 3 days thereafter;

(v) Petitioner shall not involve or indulge in any other offence during the currency of bail and any such event, if reported or came to the notice of this Court, the same alone shall be a reason to cancel the bail hereby granted.