Back
2021 Supreme(Online)(KER) 14766
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
HUMAYOON – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Bail Appl./3683/2021
SHABU SREEDHARAN, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
Bail under NDPS Act is limited by Section 37, particularly for repeat offenders with multiple NDPS cases against them.
Headnote:
Bail - Criminal Procedure Code - Section 439, NDPS Act - Sections 22(b), 20(b)(ii)(A) - The court analyzed bail parameters under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, resulting in the dismissal of the bail application due to the accused's involvement in multiple NDPS offenses.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner is in custody since February 7, 2019, for offenses under the NDPS Act and has filed a bail application while contending that he is willing to comply with conditions for bail, amid a request for a time-bound trial.
Finding of the Court:
The court concluded that despite the petitioner's long custody, his repeated bail applications and involvement in multiple NDPS cases warranted denial of bail, while directing the trial court to expedite proceedings.
Issues: Whether the petitioner should be granted bail, considering his lengthy custody and multiple pending cases under the NDPS Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reinforced that the stringent conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act restrict bail to those accused of NDPS offenses, especially when multiple cases are involved.
Final Decision: Bail application dismissed; trial court directed to expedite proceedings.
O R D E R
This Bail Application filed under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code was heard through Video Conference.
2. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No. 85/2019 of Mannuthy Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Secs. 22(b) and 20 (b)ii(A) of the NDPS Act . Now, the investigation of the case is over and the case is pending before the Additional Sessions Court, Thrissur as SC No.253/2019. The petitioner is in custody from 7.2.2019 onwards.
3. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor.
The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in custody from 7.2.2019. The counsel submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide any conditions, if this Court grant him bail. The counsel submitted that considering the pandemic situation, there may be a direction to release the petitioner for a short period. The counsel submitted that if this Court is not inclined to grant bail or interim bail, there may be a direction to the lower court to dispose the main case itself in a time frame.
4. The Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the bail application.
The Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner is involved in five other cases in which two of them are NDPS cases. The Public Prosecutor submitted a report, in which details are narrated. The same is extracted hereunder :
1) Mannuthy PS Cr.86/19 registered under Secs.323, 294(b), 506(ii), 354, 34 IPC & 119(a) KP Act
2) Mannuthy PS Cr.111/19 registered under Sec.77 of JJ Act.
3) Palakkad Town Circle Cr. 9/18 registered under Secs.20(B)(II)B of NDPS Act .
4) Peechi Police Station Crime No. 688/18 registered under Secs.427, 323, 341, 294(b) IPC and Sec. 3 of Kerala Hospital Prevention of Damage of Hospital Property.
5) Peechi Police Station Crime No.242/18 registered under Sec.27 of NDPS Act .
5. This is the 5th bail application filed by the petitioner. It is true that the petitioner is in custody from 7.2.2019 onwards. But, the petitioner is involved in 5 other cases, in which two of the cases are charge sheeted under the provisions of NDPS Act . The jurisdiction of this Court to release an accused involved in an NDPS case is limited in the light of Sec.37 of the Act. Therefore, I am not inclined to release the petitioner on bail. But there is some force in the argument of the petitioner that the petitioner is in custody from 2019 and the trial is not started even now. In such circumstances, there can be a direction to the trial court to expedite the trial. The trial court will take every endeavour to dispose the case as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within 6 months from the date on which the regular sitting is started after Covid-
19 pandemic lockdown.
With these observations, this bail application is dismissed.
