Back
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, J
STATE OF KERALA – Appellant
Versus
SREEBABU – Respondent
Crl.MC 755 2023
Bail - Narcotics - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 37, 36A(4), 439 - The judgment emphasized that the requirements under Section 37 must be adhered to while granting bail for offenses involving commercial quantities of narcotics. It established conditions necessary for granting bail, focusing on public safety and the seriousness of drug offenses.
Fact of the Case:
The State challenged a bail order granted to the respondent by the Sessions Judge, following the arrest of the first accused with significant quantities of MDMA and allegations of the respondent's involvement in drug trafficking.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Sessions Judge failed to comply with the necessary legal framework under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which should have dictated the bail decision considering the evidence against the respondent.
Issues: The main issue was whether the Sessions Judge correctly applied the legal standards under Section 37 of the NDPS Act concerning bail for offenses involving commercial quantities of drugs.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the mandates of Section 37 must be strictly followed, which includes the necessity of reasonable grounds for believing the accused is not guilty for releasing them on bail, particularly in drug-related offenses.
Final Decision: The order granting bail was set aside.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V TH TUESDAY, THE 13 DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 23RD JYAISHTA, 1945 CRL.MC NO. 755 OF 2023 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT CMP NO.4059/2022 OF DISTRICT &
SESSIONS COURT, ALAPPUZHA PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 BY ADVS.
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ADDL.DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION(AG-11)
ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR(AG-28)
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED:
SREEBABU AGED 43 YEARS S/O SUNDARAN, MADATHUMMURI HOUSE, MAVELIKKARA P.O, MAVELIKKARA VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 690101 BY ADVS. B.PRAMOD BIJU VIGNESWAR(KAR/171/1998)
AYYAPPADAS V(K/001500/2018)
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
13.06.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
“CR”
ORDER
This petition is filed by the State challenging the order dated
13.10.2022 in Crl. M.P. No. 4059/2022 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Alappuzha, granting regular bail to the respondent herein.
2. Short facts are as under:
The prosecution allegation is that on 11.02.2022 at about 2.55 PM, the
1st accused was found travelling in a private bus bearing Registration No.KL-38-2825 from Cherthala Bhagom to Arukkutty possessing 138.750 gms of MDMA. Based on source information, he was arrested, and the contraband articles were seized. The 1st accused is alleged to have disclosed that the respondent herein is his close friend and associate. A crime was registered as FIR No.110/2022 at Poochakkal Police Station u/s.22(c) and 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“the Act, 1985” for brevity) against accused Nos. 1 and 2. The investigation which was conducted disclosed the involvement of the accused Nos. 3 and 4.
3. An application for regular bail was preferred by the 2nd accused.
The learned Sessions Judge took note of the rival contentions and observed as follows:
“6. From a perusal of the report, it can be seen that huge quantity of MDMA is allegedly recovered in this case from the possession of the first accused. It emerges that, this case was detected on the basis of a tip-off received by the S.1. of Police, Poochackal Police station. The quantity of contraband seized in this case is commercial quantity. It is alleged that it was the petitioner, who aided the first accused to purchase the contraband seized in this case. There is specific allegation that the petitioner helped the 1st accused to purchase the contraband seized in this case and also received monetary benefits for the help which he had given to the 1st accused for purchasing the contraband. From the case diary, it emerges that already sufficient materials are collected by the police regarding the complicity of the petitioner in the commission of the offence and in the conspiracy hatched between the accused persons in this case. There is specific allegation that all the accused frequently contacted each other over phone and there were monetary transactions between them. Therefore, the petitioner cannot escape from the liability solely for the reason that no contraband is seized from him.
7. However, the contraband is actually seized from the exclusive possession of the first accused. When compared with first accused, the role played by the petitioner in the alleged commission of the offence stands on a lower pedestal. Undisputedly, no contraband is seized from the possession of the petitioner. The petitioner is seen arrested in this case on 12.02.2022 and since then he has been in custody. The investigation with respect to the involvement of the petitioner in the commission of the offence appears to have progressed substantially. I do admit that, already an order has been passed by this court, in view of S.36 A (4) of the NDPS Act, and a further time till 14.11.2022 is granted for completing the investigation in this case in respect of A2 and hence the period of detention authorised by the statute as per sub
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
