IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS WEDNESDAY, THE 12^TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 22ND JYAISHTA, 1946 BAIL APPL. NO. 3082 OF 2024 CRIME NO.16/2023 OF EXCISE ENFORCEMENT AND ANTI NARCOTIC SPECIAL SQUAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, Thiruvananthapuram PETITIONER/S:

EBIN, AGED 27 YEARS S/O EUGINE, JUDGE COTTAGE, VANDAZHA NINNA VEEDU, PUTHIYATHURA P.O., NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695526 BY ADV LATHEESH SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT/S:

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031

2 EXCISE CIRCLE INSPECTOR, EXCISE ENFORCEMENT AND ANTI NARCOTIC SPECIAL SQUAD, NANDANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695003 OTHER PRESENT:

Sr PP Smt Seetha S THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

12.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

C.S.DIAS,J ======================

Bail Application No. 3082 of 2024 -----------------------------------

Dated this the 12^th day of June, 2024

O R D E R

The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the second accused in Crime No.16/2023 of the Excise Enforcement and Anti Narcotic Special Squad, Thiruvananthapuram, registered against the accused (two in number), for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 22(c), 25 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. The petitioner was arrested on 9.6.2023.

2. The essence of the prosecution case is that: on

9.6.2023, in the search conducted by the Investigating Officer on the first accused, 89.06 gms of MDMA was recovered from the pocket of the trousers. During his interrogation, he confessed that some more contraband was stored in his car. Accordingly in the subsequent search that was conducted in the car, 161.88 gms of MDMA was seized. Thus, a total quantity of 250.94 gms of MDMA was seized from the first accused. During the further interrogation of the first accused, it is revealed that he had given 5.58 gms of MDMA to the second accused. Accordingly, the second accused was also arrested.

Thus, the accused have committed the above offences.

3. Heard; Sri.Latheesh Sebastian, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt.Seetha.S, the learned Public Prosecutor.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusations levelled against him. There is no material to substantiate the petitioner’s involvement in the case. The petitioner has been implicated in the crime solely on the basis of the confession statement given by the first accused, which is inadmissible in law in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu [2020 (2) KLD 781]. The petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last one year, the investigation in the case is practically complete and final report has been laid. Therefore, the petitioner’s further detention is unnecessary. Hence, the application may be allowed.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the application. The Investigating Officer has filed a bail objection report, inter alia, contending that there are incriminating materials to substantiate the petitioner’s involvement in the crime. The car in which the contraband was recovered was taken on rent by the second accused. Moreover, the contraband involved in the case is of a commercial quantity and the petitioner is an inveterate offender, including for committing an offence under the NDPS Act. In fact, the petitioner is in judicial custody in Crime No.15/2023 of the very same Police Station for allegedly committing the offence punishable under Sec.22(b) of the NDPS Act. As the contraband involved in the case is of a commercial quantity, the rigour under Sec.37 of the Act applies. As the petitioner has criminal antecedents, he does not qualify the second limb of Sec.37 of the Act. If the petitioner is enlarged on bail, there is every likelihood of him committing a similar offence. Hence, the appli