Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 18365
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 7TH CHAITHRA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 9715 OF 2023
CRIME NO.2028/2023 OF Palarivattom Police Station, Ernakulam
PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED:
MUHAMMED RASHID,
AGED 29 YEARS
S/O. ABDUL RAZAQ, PARUTHITHODIKAYIL HOUSE,
MAVOOR P.O., KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673661
BY ADVS.
T.D.SUSMITH KUMAR
JAYKAR.K.S.
T.O.DEEPA
C.SIVADAS
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT & STATE:
1
STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
2
THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
PALARIVATTOM POLICE STATION,
PALARIVATTOM, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682025
OTHER PRESENT:
SMT.NIMA JACOB, PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
27.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2024:KER:24018
-2-
BA No.9715/2023
MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
BA No.9715 of 2023
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 27th day of March, 2024
A person who is found in possession of a commercial quantity of contraband is not entitled to bail.
Headnote:
BAIL - NDPS ACT - [SECTION 8(C), 22(C), 29] - REGULAR BAIL - DENIED - DRIVER OF THE VEHICLE FROM WHICH CONTRABAND WAS SEIZED - COMMERCIAL QUANTITY INVOLVED - CONSPIRACY - NO MERIT IN THE APPLICATION
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was arrested for allegedly being in possession of 54.60 grams of MDMA for the purpose of sale. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner was found in a car with the first accused, and that the contraband was meant for sale.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner was the driver of the vehicle from which the contraband was seized, and that the prosecution had alleged that the petitioner and the other accused had conspired to commit the offences. The court also noted that a commercial quantity of contraband was involved, which invited the rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to bail.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner was not entitled to bail because he was the driver of the vehicle from which the contraband was seized, the prosecution had alleged that the petitioner and the other accused had conspired to commit the offences, and a commercial quantity of contraband was involved.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petitioner's bail application.
This is an application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. Seeking regular bail.
2. The petitioner is the second accused in Crime No.2028/2024 of Palarivattom Police station alleging offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 22 (c) and r/w Section 29 of the NDPS Act.
3. The prosecution allegation is that on 6.9.2023, at 10.50 p.m. accused 1 and 2 were found in possession of 54.60 grams of MDMA for the purpose of sale in front of New Jaya Restaurant at Palarivattom. Initially, the case was filed only against accused 1 and 2 and after investigation, the petitioner herein was also arrayed as the second accused and the allegation is that A1 to A3 conspired to commit the offences
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no material to BA No.9715/2023 connect the accused herein and that he is innocent of the charges.
5. The Learned Public Prosecutor opposing the bail application submits that the petitioner was found in a car bearing registration No KL 58 1668 along with the first accused in possession of 54.46 grams of methamphetamine. The petitioner was the driver of the said vehicle. The contraband was meant for sale and the same is evident from the investigation.
Taking note of the fact that the petitioner was the driver of the vehicle from which the contraband was seized, the allegation of the prosecution that A1 to A3 conspired to commit the same, the fact that commercial quantity is involved inviting the rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. I do not think that the petitioner is entitled to bail. I find no merit in the application and the same is accordingly dismissed.
