HIGH COURT OF KERALA
MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., J
MUHAMMAD SHARON, – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA, – Respondent
Bail Appl. 1184/2024
Bail - NDPS Act - Sections 22(C), 29 - The court granted bail to the petitioner, the second accused in a case under the NDPS Act, considering the fact that all other accused had been granted bail, the length of the petitioner's detention, and the lack of any apprehension that the petitioner would abscond if released on bail, despite the antecedent under the NDPS Act involving an intermediate quantity of Ganja.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner is the second accused in a case under Sections 22(C) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985. The prosecution alleged that on 31.7.2022, the police seized 74 grams of MDMA from the possession of the first accused, and the petitioner was present at the scene.
Finding of the Court:
The court granted bail to the petitioner, considering the fact that all other accused had been granted bail, the length of the petitioner's detention, and the lack of any apprehension that the petitioner would abscond if released on bail, despite the antecedent under the NDPS Act involving an intermediate quantity of Ganja.
Issues: Whether the petitioner should be granted bail under the circumstances of the case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court granted bail to the petitioner, considering the fact that all other accused had been granted bail, the length of the petitioner's detention, and the lack of any apprehension that the petitioner would abscond if released on bail, despite the antecedent under the NDPS Act involving an intermediate quantity of Ganja.
Final Decision: The court granted bail to the petitioner, subject to certain conditions.
This is an application for regular bail filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 .
2. The petitioner is the second accused in Crime No. 654/2022 of Sreekariyam Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram district, for offences punishable under Sections 22(C) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985.
3. The prosecution allegation is that on 31.7.2022, the respondent got information that somebody was attempting to transport Narcotic Drugs. Sreekaryam Police reached the place of occurrence and according to the prosecution, the petitioner was present along with three other accused. It is alleged by the prosecution that 74 grams of MDMA were seized from the possession of the first accused.
4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner ..3.. is innocent of all the allegations and has been falsely implicated with ulterior motives. At any rate, he points out that the petitioner has been in custody since 31.7.2022, and the continued custody of the petitioner is unnecessary.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the prayer sought by the petitioner.
7. Taking note of the fact that all the other accused have been granted bail, considering the report of the trial Court that states that at least six months' time is required for completing the trial, the length of detention of the petitioner, and that no apprehension being raised by the prosecution that if released on bail the petitioner is likely to abscond, I am inclined to grant bail under such circumstances notwithstanding the antecedent under the NDPS Act involving intermediate quantity of Ganja.
Accordingly, this application is allowed, and the petitioner is granted bail, subject to the following conditions:-
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.