Umar Mujithaba vs State Of Kerala

C.S.Dias, J

The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the sole accused in Crime No.210/2024 of the Elamakkara Police Station, Ernakulam, registered against him, for allegedly committing the offence punishable under Section. 22(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The petitioner was arrested on 22.3.2024.

The essence of the prosecution case is that: on 21.3.2024, at around 1.30 p.m, the accused was found in possession of 8.56 grams of MDMA in 14 small zip lock plastic covers in the bedroom of his house at Ernakulam. The petitioner was arrested with the contraband then and there at the spot. Thus, the accused has committed the above offence.

Heard; Sri.Mohammed Aslam P.A, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. Seetha.S, the learned Public Prosecutor.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusations leveled against him. In any given case, the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 22.3.2024. The investigation in the case is practically complete and recovery has been effected. Moreover, the contraband involved in the case is of an intermediate quantity. Hence, the application may be allowed.

The learned Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the application. She submitted that the investigation is in progress. She stated that if the petitioner is released on bail, there is every likelihood of him committing a similar offence. Nonetheless, she did not dispute to the fact that the contraband involved in the case is of an intermediate quantity and the petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents.

On an anxious consideration of the facts, the materials placed on record and the rival submissions made across the Bar, especially considering the fact that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last 60 days, that the contraband involved in the case is of an intermediate quantity, that  the  petitioner  does  not  have  any  criminal antecedents, that the investigation in the case is practically complete and that the recovery has been effected, I am of the definite view that the petitioner’s further detention is unnecessary. Hence, I am inclined to allow the bail application.

In the result, the application is allowed, by directing the petitioner to be released on bail on him executing a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum, to the satisfaction of the court having jurisdiction, which shall be subject to the following conditions:

(i) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on every Saturday between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m for a period of three months or till the final report is filed, whichever is earlier. He shall also appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required;

(ii) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or procure to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any Police Officer or tamper with the evidence in any manner, whatsoever;

(iii) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while he is on bail;

(iv) The petitioner shall surrender his passport, if any, before the court below at the time of execution of the bond. If he has no passport, he shall file an affidavit to the effect before the court below on the date of execution of the bond;

(v) In case of violation of any of the conditions mentioned above, the jurisdictional court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation of bail, if any filed, and pass orders on the same, in accordance with law.

(vi) Applications for deletion/modification of the bail conditions shall be filed and entertained before the court below.

(vii) Needless to mention, it would be well within the powers of the Investigating Officer to investigate the matter and, if necessary, to effect recoveries on the information, if any, given by the petitioner even while the petitioner is on bail as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another [2020 (1) KHC 663].