The confession statement of the co-accused cannot be the sole basis to implicate the petitioner, as per the decision in Tofan Singh vs. State of Tamil Nadu.

The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 , by the 2nd accused in Crime No.288/2024 of the Valapattanam (shown as Baliapattam in Annexure A1 FIR) Police Station, Kannur registered against the accused (two in number) for allegedly committing the offence punishable under Section 20 (b)(ii)B of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short, ‘the Act’). The petitioner was arrested on 21.04.2024.

2. The essence of the prosecution case is that: on 20.04.2024, the Sub Inspector of Police had received an information that the 1st accused was found in possession of ganja. Accordingly, a search was conducted and 7 kilograms of ganja was seized from the possession of the 1st accused. During his interrogation he confessed that the 2nd accused was also involved in the crime.

Accordingly, the 2nd accused was also arrested and implicated as an accused in the crime. Thus, the accused have committed the above offence.

3. Heard; Sri.Sreejith C.K., the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt.Neema T.V., the learned Public Prosecutor.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusations leveled against him. He has been falsely implicated in the crime solely on the basis of the confession statement made by the 1st accused which is hit by the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Tofan Singh vs. State of Tamil Nadu [2020 (6) KHC 111] . There is no material to link the petitioner's involvement in the crime.

In any given case, the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 21.04.2024, 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 and the petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents. Hence, the application may be allowed.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the application. She submitted that the investigation in the case is in progress. She also stated that since the petitioner has no roots in the State of Kerala, as he is hailing from the State of Uttar Pradesh.

Therefore, there is every likelihood of him fleeing from justice. Furthermore, if the petitioner is released on bail, there is also a likelihood of him committing similar offences. Hence, the application may be dismissed.

6. The prosecution allegation is that the 1st accused was found in possession of 7 kilograms of ganja. During his interrogation he confessed that the 2nd accused was also involved in the case. Consequently, the 2nd accused was also arrested on the basis of the confession made by the 1st accused. The fact remains that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last 40 days, the contraband involved in the case is of an intermediate quantity and the petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents. It is well settled in Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar [1981 SCC 181] that merely because a person does not have roots in a State, the same cannot be treated as a ground to deny bail to him.

7. On an anxious consideration of the facts, the rival submissions made across the Bar and the materials placed on record, especially considering the fact that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last nearly 40 days, the investigation in the case is practically complete, recovery has been effected, and further that the contraband involved in the case is of an intermediate quantity and the petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents, I am inclined to allow the bail application, but subject to stringent conditions.

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 Investigati