Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 52663
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
VIJU ABRAHAM, J
MAHEEN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Bail Appl./6908/2022
The stringent conditions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act necessitate a high burden of proof for bail in cases involving serious narcotic charges and prior convictions.
Headnote:
Bail - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act - Sections 8(c), 22(c), 29, 37 - The court analyzed the provisions of the NDPS Act concerning the rigor of bail under Section 37, determining that the accused failed to satisfy the required conditions for bail due to the nature of the offenses and prior criminal history.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, accused No.5, faces charges under the NDPS Act for supplying MDMA. Arrested based on confessions from others involved, the prosecution claims substantial evidence linking the petitioner to the crime, including mobile evidence and prior criminal cases.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner could not overcome the stringent conditions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act due to the serious nature of the charges and his prior convictions. The court considered the quantity of contraband and ongoing investigation.
Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail under the NDPS Act despite the gravity of the charges and his prior criminal record.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the necessity of satisfying the conditions outlined in Section 37 of the NDPS Act for bail in cases involving commercial quantities of narcotics.
Final Decision: Bail application dismissed.
ORDER
This is an application for regular bail.
2. The petitioner is accused No.5 in Crime No.591/2022 of Kayamkulam Police Station, Alappuzha District alleging commission of offences punishable under Section 8 (c) r/w Sections 22 (c) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act .
3. The prosecution allegation is that, on 25/06/2022, a specific tip-off has been received by the Police party that accused Nos. 1 to 4 were transporting MDMA for the purpose of sale at a place near to Kayamkulam Municipality park. Accordingly, the Police party apprehended accused Nos. 1 to 4 and on search of their body, MDMA weighing 4.48 grams, 2.09 grams, 2.35 grams and 2.20 grams respectively was seized from accused Nos. 1 to 4. When the confession statement of the accused was recorded by the Police, accused 1 to 4 stated that the contraband article was given to them by the 5th accused and thus 5th accused/petitioner has committed the aforesaid offences.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false and that he was implicated in this crime on the basis of confession statement of accused Nos. 1 to 4 and that he was arrested on 26.07.2022. It is also submitted that other than the confession statement, there is nothing to connect the petitioner with the alleged crime.
5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application for bail and upon instructions submitted that commercial quantity of the contraband was seized from the possession of accused Nos. 1 to 4 and from the statement given by them, it was revealed that the alleged contraband was supplied to them by the petitioner herein. The CDR of the mobile phone of the accused reveals that they have been in constant contact with each other and on verification of the tower locations, it is revealed that they were all together at Bangalore. It is further submitted that admittedly the contraband involved is of commercial quantity and the investigation is going on and therefore, the petitioner shall not be released on bail. It is also submitted that the petitioner is involved in various criminal cases out of which two are/ under the provisions of the NDPS Act, the details of the cases are as given below:
Crime Nos. 645/21 u/s 20b(ii) A of NDPS Act & Sec.77 of JJ Act, 1573/2018 u/s 447, 323, 324, 506 IPC, 127/2020 u/s 341, 323, 324, 201, 34 IPC & Sec.27 of Arms Act, 2013/2019 u/s 118(i) of KP Act and Sec.6 r/w 24 of COTPA Act and 379/21 u/s 27 of NDPS Act of Kayamkulam Police Station.
6. Since the contraband article being of commercial quantity, the rigor of Section 37 of the NDPS Act will come to play. No substantial contentions have been raised by the petitioner to get over the rigor of . Long period of custody cannot be a reason for granting of bail. I feel that the petitioner is not successful in establishing that his case will not come within the twin conditions in of the NDPS Act. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the criminal antecedents of the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage.
Accordingly, the bail application is dismissed.
