Thayyiba Aula vs State Of Kerala

Mohammed Nias C.P., J.

These bail applications are filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for regular bail.

The petitioner in both cases is one and the same person. In BA No.5548/2023 she is the 6th accused in crime No.36/2021, now pending as SC 378/2022 on the file of the District and Sessions Court, Ernakulam, and in BA 5810/2023 she is the 4th accused in crime No.38/2021 of Ernakulam Excise Range office, Ernakulam.

The prosecution allegations in these cases are as follows:-

In B.A.No.5548/2023, it is alleged that on 19.8.2021 at about 1.40 am, the Excise Enforcement and Anti Narcotic Special Squad, Ernakulam acting on a tip-off conducted a search in Marhaba Apartment, Vazhakala and seized 8.896 gm of MDMA illegally kept for sale in an apartment in the first floor of C block and arrested accused Nos.1 to 5. In BA No.5810/2023, the allegation of the prosecution is that on 19.8.2021 at about 7 pm., the Excise Enforcement and Anti Narcotic Special Squad, Ernakulam acting on a tip-off conducted a search in the car parking area in Marhaba Apartment, Vazhakala and seized 1.085 gm of MDMA illegally kept for sale in a black colour bag on the south-east corner of the car parking area.

Learned counsel for the petitioner in both the cases submits that there was no seizure at all from the fourth accused; A1, A5 and A6 are already granted statutory bail and she is falsely implicated in the case, arguing that she has been detained since 28.08.2021 he prayed for releasing the petitioner on bail. It is also argued that the arrest was ten days after the incident that happened on 19.8.2021. There were no other financial transactions between any of the accused, there are no antecedents reported against the petitioner, and she was only the lover of the second accused who travelled along with A2.

The learned Prosecutor, on the other hand, opposing the bail applications submits that there was proof of her meeting along with A1 and A2, the Call Data Records, and the bank transactions, all showed the involvement of the petitioner. It is also shown that the amount was deposited, while she was in Chennai, into the account of A8. There was also proof of monetary transactions using the SBI ATM and the CCTV footage of the apartment also showed the presence of the petitioner. Since the involvement of the petitioner is clear, she may not be enlarged on bail, is the submission of the learned Prosecutor.

Having considered the rival submissions, I am of the view that there are materials to connect the petitioner with the crime. The fact that the petitioner had gone to Pondicherry with A2 on 10.8.2021, and returned on 17.8.2021 from Pondicherry, the contraband was hidden along with the pet food, the CCTV footage of the apartment, the bank transactions as mentioned earlier, all these are prima facie materials to connect the petitioner with the crime. As commercial quantity is involved in this case, the rigour of Section 37 also applies.

This Court had called for a report from the lower court as regards the time required for disposal of SC 378/2022 and the court below has intimated that the said case will be scheduled for trial from 25.10.2023 and every effort will be taken to dispose of the matter on or before 31.12.2023. This is recorded. The bail applications are dismissed.

However, there will be a direction to the court to adhere to the timeline indicated by it in the communication addressed to this Court on 07.10.2023.