Back
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
C.S. DIAS, J
LIJIN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Bail Appl. 4941/2024
Bail - Narcotic Drugs - NDPS Act Sections [22(c), 29, 37] - The court reiterated the stringent conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act concerning bail, highlighting that the accused's criminal antecedents and the nature of the offense significantly influence the decision, affirming the denial of bail.
Fact of the Case:
The third accused was involved in a drug-related case where 89.70 grams of MDMA was seized from a car carrying five individuals. The petitioner was seeking bail after previously being denied due to his criminal background and lack of evidence for innocence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found no substantial change in circumstances since the previous bail applications were rejected. It determined that the accused's prior criminal records and the significant quantity of contraband justified the denial of bail.
Issues: Whether the petitioner merits bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, given his criminal history and the nature of the offense.
Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld that the twin conditions of Section 37 must be satisfied for bail under the NDPS Act, emphasizing the severe implications of drug offenses.
Final Decision: The bail application was dismissed.
Dated this the 02nd day of July, 2024 The third accused in Crime No.1766 of 2023 of the Attingal Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, which is registered against five accused persons for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 22 (c) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (‘Act’, for brevity), is before this Court, for the second time, with this application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘Code’, for short).
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that: on 30.07.2023, at around 04.00 hours, the Detecting Officer and party intercepted a car bearing Registration No.DL-4-CNE-365, in which five persons were travelling, conducted a search of the vehicle, and they seized 89.70 grams of MDMA from the vehicle. The five persons were arrested on the spot with the contraband article, and are arraigned as accused 1 to 5 in the crime.
3. Heard; Sri.M.R.Rajesh, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.Seetha S, the learned Public Prosecutor.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, the petitioner is innocent of the accusations levelled against him. There is no material to establish the petitioner’s involvement in the crime. As the final report has been laid now, there is a change of circumstance after the dismissal of the petitioner’s earlier application. The petitioner has been languishing in jail since 30.07.2023. This Court had dismissed the petitioner’s earlier application mainly on the ground that the petitioner has criminal antecedents, as he is involved in two crimes in 2013 and 2017. Actually, the crimes have no significance. It is only a recent crime that has any relevance. Additionally, as the petitioner was only a co-passenger in the car, he cannot be attributed to having committed the offences. Hence, the application may be allowed.
5. The learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the application. She submitted that there is no change of circumstance to file the second application. Immediately after the passing of Annexure B order by this Court on 22.01.2024, the petitioner approached the Court of Session, Thiruvananthapuram and filed a fresh application. By Annexure C order, the application was dismissed on 17.02.2024. Then, the petitioner has moved this Court. The petitioner is indulging in forum-shopping by hopping from one Court to the other. The petitioner is a person with criminal antecedents, as he is involved in two other crimes in 2013 and 2017, and there is convincing material to establish the petitioner’s involvement in the crime. The application falls within the sweep of Section 37 of the Act. If the petitioner is released on bail, he is likely to commit an offence. Therefore, the application may be dismissed.
6. The prosecution allegation against the petitioner and the other accused is that they were found in conscious possession of 89.70 grams of MDMA.
7. The petitioner had filed B.A.No.182 of 2024 before this Court, which was dismissed by Annexure B order on the findings that there are prima facie materials to substantiate the petitioner’s involvement in the crime, the contraband involved in the case is of a commercial quantity and that the petitioner is a person with criminal antecedents.
8. Immediately, thereafter, the petitioner filed an application before the Court of Session, Thiruvananthapuram. By Annexure C order, the application was dismissed on the findings that the petitioner is involved in Crime Nos.803/2013 and 1098/2017 of the Kadakkavur Police Station and that there are incriminating materials to establish his involvement in the crime.
9. Then, the petitioner has moved the third application before this Court.
10. The sheet anchor of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, as the final report has been laid, there is a change of circumstance, and the two crimes are not of the recent past. Therefore, the second limb of Section 37 of the Act is not attracted.
11. Before adverting to the above conten
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
