Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 34824
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., J
RENIN A.R – Appellant
Versus
SUPERINTENDENT OF CUSTOMS – Respondent
Bail Appl. 8175/2024
RENJITH B.MARAR, LAKSHMI.N.KAIMAL, P.RAJKUMAR, KESHAVRAJ NAIR, ARUN POOMULLI, ANAND REMESH, ABHIJITH SREEKUMAR, ABHIRAM.S.GAADHA, SURESH T.K.BABU, SREELAL N. WARRIER
The court denied bail under the NDPS Act due to substantial evidence linking the accused to the financing and purchase of narcotics, emphasizing the restrictions imposed by Section 37.
Headnote:(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Sections 22(c), 23(c), 27A, and 29 – Bail application – The second accused involved in the financing and purchase of LSD stamps was denied bail due to substantial evidence linking him to the crime, including WhatsApp chats and cryptocurrency transactions. (Paras 1-9) (B) Bail – The court emphasized the bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which restricts bail in cases involving commercial quantities of narcotics unless specific conditions are met. (Paras 8-9)
Facts of the case:
The second accused was implicated in a case involving the possession of 1.39 grams of LSD, with evidence showing his role in financing the purchase through cryptocurrency.
Findings of Court:
The court found sufficient prima facie evidence against the second accused, including corroborative statements and digital evidence. Issues: The main issues were the connection of the second accused to the crime and the applicability of Section 29 of the NDPS Act. Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the evidence presented, including digital communications, established a clear link to the crime, justifying the denial of bail. Result: Bail application dismissed.
O R D E R
This is the third application filed by the 2nd accused in Crime No. 18 of 2023 of Commissionerate of Customs Preventive, Ernakulam, which was registered for offences punishable under Sections 22 (c), 23(c), 27A and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the NDPS Act’ for short), for possession of 1.39 grams of LSD.
2. The prosecution case is based on the information that Narcotic drugs are concealed inside the article arrived in the name of Sri Chandu Purushothaman, Pandikasalakal House, Velliyithamparambu, Nayarambalam P.O., Ernakulam -682509 at International Mail Centre (Foreign Post Office) Chittoor Road, Ernakulam, a detailed examination of the said article was conducted which resulted in the seizure of 1.39 gram (121 Nos.) of Lysergic Acid Diethylamide (LSD) on 31.8.2023. During the course of the investigation, Shri Renin A.R. aged 31 years, holder of passport No.P8256067 dated 23.3.2017, residing at Anatt House, Nayarambalam P.O., Ernakulam- 682509 was summoned and a statement was recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act 1985, wherein he has voluntarily deposed his role and involvement in the financing and purchase of the illicit import of the seized contraband into the country.
3. The role of the second accused is that he collected money from A1 and transferred the amount abroad through Cryptocurrency for the purchase of 123 LSD stamps weighing 1.41 grams, which qualifies as a commercial quantity. A2 has admitted in his voluntary statement that he had transferred the amount collected from A1 through a Cryptocurrency transaction for the purchase of LSD stamps. The statements of A1 and A2 and other evidence are corroborative in the matter of transfer of the amount for the said purchase and the arrival of the said contraband from abroad to the Foreign Post Office. These transactions corroborate with the WhatsApp chats. The mobile phones of the A2 were seized and forwarded for forensic analysis to gather further evidence.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner Sri. Renjith B. Marar argues that apart from the inadmissible confession statements, there are no materials to connect the second accused with the crime. It is argued that the seizure was on 31.08.2023. The arrest was on 07.09.2023. The address to which the parcels came was in the name of the first accused. The allegation was that it was financed by accused Nos.1 and 3. He also argues that the financial transactions were between accused 1 and 3 and none of the documents show the link connecting the petitioner with any other transactions. He contends that the WhatsApp chats of the transactions cannot implicate him in the crime. He also submits that Section 29 of the NDPS Act has no application and relies on the judgment of Himachal Pradesh High Court reported in Jagat Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh [2024 KHC Online 2868] and on an order of this Court dated 08.10.2024 in B.A. No.4304/2024. He also submits that the petitioner is a youngster aged 31 years, who was working in a bank and that there are no other criminal antecedents reported against him. He also submits that the 3rd accused against whom similar accusations based on similar materials were made, was granted bail by order of this Court dated 11.07.2024 in B.A. No.3419/2024, produced as Annexure A8.
5. Opposing the bail application the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, Sri. Sreelal N. Warrier submits that the statement of the 2nd accused, recorded on 08.09.2023, discloses the entire transactions. The WhatsApp chats and the transfer of amounts show his active link with the other accused. The cryptocurrency transactions were made using the Paxful account of the petitioner and there is ample proof to prove the conspiracy in the case. It is also argued that there is no change at all in the circumstances for granting bail to the petitioner. It is further argued that the 3rd accused was granted bail by Annexure-A8 order specifically findi
