Back
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
VIJU ABRAHAM, J
MASHOOD – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Bail Appl./6018/2022
Bail - Narcotic Offences - NDPS Act Section List - The court examined the applicability of Sections 22(c), 25, and 29 of the NDPS Act, interpreting that procedural violations in sampling processes do not automatically warrant bail, emphasizing the serious nature of drug-related offences under Section 37.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, accused in a narcotics case involving significant quantities of MDMA, sought bail by arguing their lack of actual possession and connection to the crime. They cited procedural violations in the sampling method of the contraband as grounds for their applications.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners were connected to the alleged drug trafficking operations through various means, including financial transactions and call data records, and that the allegations warranted the denial of bail.
Issues: Whether the petitioners were entitled to bail given the serious charges under the NDPS Act despite claiming lack of possession and procedural violations in evidence collection.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that procedural irregularities do not negate the seriousness of the offences under the NDPS Act and that strict conditions for bail under Section 37 must be satisfied in narcotics cases.
Final Decision: All bail applications are dismissed.
ORDER
These are all regular bail applications arising out of the same crime and therefore they are heard and disposed of together.
2. Petitioners are accused Nos. 9, 7, 8, 14, 21, 12 and 15 in Crime No. 36/2021 of Ernakulam Excise Range registered alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 22 (c), 25 and 29 of the Narcotic Drug and Psychotropi Substances Act, 1985 (in short, “NDPS Act”). The prosecution allegation is that on 19.08.2021 at about 1.40 a.m., the Excise Enforcement and Anti Narcotic Special Squad, Ernakulam acting on a tip-off conducted a search in Marhaba Apartment, Vazhakala, and seized 83.896 grams of MDMA illegally kept for sale in an apartment in the 1st floor of C block and arrested accused Nos. 1 to 5.
3. The case of the petitioner in B.A. No. 8569/2021 who is the 9th accused in the above-said crime is that he has absolutely no connection with the above-said crime. It is also submitted that even going by the prosecution case, the petitioner was not found in possession of any contraband articles or transported or transmitted the same. Other than with the 3rd accused, the petitioner does not have any acquaintance with any of the other accused. An amount of Rs. 2 Lakhs was transferred to the account of the 3rd accused by the petitioner in connection with the purchase of a used car for the petitioner. Petitioner is in custody from 22.09.2021 and that the charge sheet is already laid. Petitioner has no other criminal antecedents. Though he moved an application before the Sessions Court, the same was rejected as per Annexure B order.
4. The case of the petitioner in B.A. No. 479/2022 who is the 7th accused in the above-said crime is that he has been falsely implicated in the above-said crime. Petitioner has never conspired and aided in the commission of the offence and the only allegation against the petitioner is that he has provided financial assistance to procure the contraband and also aided in the commission of the offence. Petitioner got acquainted with the 1st accused who was in possession of a Rot Wheeler dog and had business in the sale of dogs and the petitioner has only acted as an agent for the sale of dogs through the 1st accused. Petitioner has also financially helped the 1st and 5th accused at the time of their marriage. Petitioner is implicated only on the basis of the confession statement of the co-accused which is inadmissible as per the judgment in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu , (2021) 4 SCC
1. Petitioner further relies on the judgment in State by (NCB) Bengaluru v. Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta and Others, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 47, to contend for the position that bail cannot be denied when the allegation against the accused is only based on financing, call records and confession. The petitioner also relies on the order in B.A. No.79/2022 wherein the accused in another case was granted bail by this court, in a similar circumstance. Petitioner submits that he is in custody from 14.9.2021.
5. The case of the petitioner in B.A. No.884/2022 who is the 8th accused in the above-said crime is that he has absolutely no connection with the alleged crime and that he has been arrayed as an accused only based on bank transactions with other accused persons and such transactions happened in connection with selling and purchase of second-hand vehicles which is the business of the petitioner. It is further submitted that some of the friends of the petitioner who have no bank account have also used his bank account facility. No contraband was seized from the petitioner. Though the petitioner moved an application for bail, the same was rejected as per Annexure A order by the Sessions Court. Petitioner submits that he is in custody from 20.9.2021.
6. The case of the petitioner in B.A. No. 991/2022 who is the 14th accused in the above-said crime is that he has absolutely no connection with the alleged crime and that he has been arrayed as an accused only on the basis of call data details and that he ha
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
