SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Online)(KER) 30864

HIGH COURT OF KERALA
VIJU ABRAHAM, J
BASHEER – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Bail Appl. 9733 2023



Advocates:
K.RAKESH

The court reinforced that significant prior offenses and the nature of charges can justifiably lead to the denial of bail under narcotics law.

Headnote:

Bail - Narcotic Drugs - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Section 20(b)(ii)(B) - The court discussed the implications of repeated offenses under the NDPS Act and the need for safeguarding public interest, ultimately denying bail based on the petitioner’s criminal history and the quantity of drugs involved.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner faced charges under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act for possessing a large quantity of ganja. He had been in custody since the date of the alleged offense and applied for bail, claiming he was falsely implicated.

Issues: Whether the petitioner should be granted bail despite multiple previous offenses under the NDPS Act and ongoing charges.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the rationale behind bail denial, focusing on the risk of re-offending given the petitioner’s history as a habitual offender under drug-related laws.

Final Decision: Bail application denied.

ORDER

This is an application for regular bail.

2 Petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.264 of 2022 of Areekode Police Station, Malappuram District registered alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 20 (b)(ii)B of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 .

3. Prosecution allegation is that on 09.05.2022, 1790 grams of ganja was found at the residence of the petitioner, which was allegedly meant for sale and thus the accused committed the offence referred above.

4. Petitioner submits that he is in custody from 09.05.2022 onwards, and he has been falsely implicated in the above said crime. Though he moved an application for bail before the Special Court, Manjeri, the same was rejected and that the final report is already laid and his continued detention is not required for the purpose of investigation.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

6. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application for bail, mainly contending that large quantity of ganja was seized from the possession of the petitioner. Learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that the petitioner is involved in 14 other cases out of which 10 cases are offences punishable under the provisions of NDPS Act and out of which in 3 cases he is already convicted, the details of which are as given below:

“1. Vazhakkad PS Cr.231/11 U/S 323, 354, 427, 448 IPC

2. Manjeri Excise Cr.74/12 U/S 55(i) of Abkari Act

3. Areekode PS Cr.221/12 U/S 27(b) of NDPS Act. CC 492/2022

4. Areekode PS Cr.53/13 U/S 55(i) of Abkari Act.

5. Manjeri Excise Cr.5/2014 U/S 20(b)(2)(B) of NDPS Act.

6. Kunnamangalam PS Cr.218/15 U/S 20(b)(ii)(A) of NDPS Act – Convicted 7. Kozhikode town PS Cr.378/16 U/S 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act – Convicted

8. Areekode PS Cr.33/17 U/S 20(b)(2) of NDPS Act – Convicted

9. Areekode PS Cr.57/17 U/S 107 CrPC

10. Areekode PS Cr.154/17 U/S 20(b)(ii)(A) of NDPS Act – SC.837/2020

11. Mukkam PS Cr.307/18 U/S 20(b)(2)(B)(ii)(A) of NDPS Act.

12. Areekode PS Cr.28/19 U/S 20(b)(ii)(A) of NDPS Act. - Convicted

13. Areekode PS Cr.26/22 U/S 20(b)(ii)(A) of NDPS Act – CC.261/2022

14. Areekode PS Cr.204/22 U/S 20(b)(ii)(A) of NDPS Act – CC.469/2022”

The learned Public Prosecutor also submitted that the petitioner had even made his minor daughter involved in the sale of Ganja. In view of the fact that the petitioner is a habitual offender having been involved in 14 cases out of which 10 cases are punishable under the NDPS Act, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

This court while dismissing the application of the petitioner seeking bail as per Annexure B order, directed the trial Court to expedite the trial of the case. I have called for a report from the trial Court concerned and it is reported that the evidence has already commenced and PW1 to PW13 are already examined. Taking into consideration the detention of the petitioner for long, there will be a direction to the trial court to expedite the trial of the case, and complete the same without much delay.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top