Susmitha Philip vs State Of Kerala

Viju Abraham, J.

Application for regular bail.

Petitioner is the 12th accused in Crime No.36/2021 of Ernakulam Excise Range registered alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 22(c), 25 and 29 of the Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short, “NDPS Act”)

The prosecution allegation is that on 19.08.2021 at about 1.40 a.m, the Excise Enforcement and Anti Narcotic Special Squad, Ernakulam acting on a tip-off conducted a search in Marhaba Apartment, Vazhakala, and seized 83.896 grams of MDMA illegally kept for sale in an apartment in the 1st floor of C block and arrested the accused persons.

Petitioner submits that she has been falsely implicated in the above said crime and she was implicated as an accused only on the basis of the confession statement of the co-accused. Petitioner submits that she is a tuition teacher by profession. Petitioner submits that she was arrested on 30.09.2021. She further submits that the investigation is over and charge sheet has been laid and therefore her continued detention is not required for the purpose of investigation. She further submits that she has no other criminal antecedents. Petitioner also submits that accused No.15 in the above crime has been granted bail by the Apex Court as per Annexure-3 order that accused No.20 was granted bail by this Court as per order dated 9.6.2023 in Annexure-A4 order. Petitioner would also contend that accused Nos.7,9,13 & 14 were granted bail as per Annexure-A5 order and the allegations against her are similar to that of the other accused. Therefore, going by Annexures-3, 4 and 5 orders, she is also entitled for bail.

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

Learned   Public   Prosecutor   opposed   the application for bail mainly contending that the petitioner cannot claim that she is similarly situated to the other accused and she has an active role in the commission of the offence. Petitioner further submits that this Court in Fasil v. State of Kerala (2023 (3) KHC 212) has laid down the parameters for consideration of bail applications in which the rigour of Section 37 is involved. Petitioner submit that she has undergone imprisonment for more than one year and that she has no other criminal antecedents. Petitioner also submits that there is no chance that the trial of the case to be completed within a period of 6 months and her case will squarely fit into the parameters fixed by this Court in Fasil's case supra. It is to be noticed that though a direction has been issued by this Court to complete the trial of the case within a period of 6 months from the date of framing charge, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that trial has not yet started.

Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case and taking into consideration the fact that accused Nos.15,20,7,9,13 and 14 have been granted bail as per Annexures-3, 4 & 5 orders and also taking into consideration the fact that petitioner's case squarely falls within the parameters fixed in Fasil's case supra, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the application is allowed on the following conditions:

(i) Petitioner shall be released on bail on her 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;

(ii) Petitioner shall co-operate with the trial of the case;

(iii) Petitioner shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the witnesses; nor shall she attempt to tamper with the evidence;

(iv) Petitioner shall not commit any other offences while she is on bail;

(v) Petitioner shall not leave the country without the permission of the jurisdictional court;

(vi) Petitioner shall surrender her passport before the jurisdictional court. If the petitioner does not have a passport, she shall execute an affidavit to that effect and file the same before the said court within seven days of release 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 order in accordance with the law, notwithstanding the bail having been granted by this Court.