Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 54485
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022 / 23RD BHADRA, 1944 BAIL APPL. NO. 5628 OF 2022 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENTCRMC 524/2022 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT,TRIVANDRUM PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2:
MUHAMED ALTHAF, AGED 23 YEARS S/O. LATHEEF, ANSIYA MANZIL, PTA, NAGAR - 196, KAYYALAKKAL, ERAVIPURAM PO, KOLLAM - , PIN - 691011 BY ADVS.
BIJU .C. ABRAHAM THOMAS C.ABRAHAM RESPONDENT/STATE:
STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED PUBLIC PROCECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, KOCHIN, PIN - 682031 OTHER PRESENT:
PP - SMT. NIMA JACOB THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
14.09.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
VIJU ABRAHAM, J.
-------------------
---------------------------
Dated this the 14th day of September, 2022
['BIJU C ABRAHAM', '', 'THOMAS C ABRAHAM', 'PUBLIC PROSECUTOR']
ORDER
Applications for anticipatory bail.
2. Petitioner is the 2nd accused in Crime No.
190/2022 of Mangalapuram Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram District, registered alleging commission of the offence under Section22 (b) of the NDPS Act.
3. The prosecution case is that, on 21.02.2022 at
11.10 am in furtherance of their common intention shared among the accused persons 1 & 2, the accused persons were found transporting 5 grams of MDMA, in a motorcycle, for the purpose of sale. Thereby, the accused persons are alleged to have committed the said offence.
4. The petitioner submits that he is totally innocent of the charges leveled against him. At the time of the alleged incident the petitioner was 65 kilometres away from the spot. Petitioner produced Annexure-2 photographs showing the bike in which the petitioner was travelling as a pillion rider. Though petitioner moved an application for bail, the same was rejected as per Annexure-3 order by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Thiruvananthapuram and subsequent bail application was rejected by this Court as per Annexure-4 order. Based on a specific averment of the petitioner that he was not present at the spot a report was called for through the learned Public Prosecutor. The learned Public Prosecutor upon instructions submitted that going by the statement of the 1st accused, it has the petitioner who was riding the motorbike at the relevant point of time and further that statement of the staff of the petrol pump in which the petitioner alleged that he was present at the relevant point of time, revealed that there is no back up for the CC TV visuals and therefore, they could not find out any such details, and further submitted that there is 8 minutes difference in the time set in camera as compared to the original time. Learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that from the alleged place of incident and to the petrol pump, the distance is only 42 kilometres. This Court has already consider the bail application on an earlier occasion and rejected the same. There is no change of circumstance to consider grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
Accordingly, the above bail application is dismissed.
