Dismissed

Sarjunath v. State of Kerala and Another

Kerala HC22 Jun 2010Bail Appl./2251/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application for anticipatory relief under the NDPS Act, the petitioner was charged with involvement in heroin trafficking. The Court refused bail, noting the grave nature of allegations, the petitioner's status as an absconding accused facing summons proceedings, and the potential adverse effect on investigation.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail application dismissed; proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. continue.

Sarjunath Vs State of Kerala and Another — Narcotics (NDPS) | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 22ND JUNE 2010 / 1ST ASHADHA 1932

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 2251 of 2010()

¶6

----------------------------(O.R.NO. 2/2009 OF NARCOTIC CONTROL BUREAU, REGIONAL INTELLIGENCE UNIT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PENDING BEFORE THE SESSIONS COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM)

¶7

PETITIONER/ 3RD ACCUSED

¶8

¶9

SARJUNATH, T.C. 35/586A, SULAIMAN STREET, VALLAKADAVU.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.G.SUDHEER

¶11

RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANTS

¶12

¶13

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR FOR NARCOTIC CASES, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶14

INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU, REGIONAL INTELLIGENCE UNIT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶15

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.TEKCHAND SRI.C.P.UDAYABHANU (R2)

¶16

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

K.HEMA, J

¶18

B.A No.2251 OF 2010

¶19

Dated this the 22^nd day of June 2010

¶20

ORDER

¶21

This petition is for anticipatory bail.

¶22

The alleged offences are under Sections 8(c) r/w 21(a), 27A, 28&29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. According to prosecution, Intelligence Officer, Narcotic Control Bureau got reliable information that first accused who was in possession of heroin was about to hand over it to third accused (petitioner) at the railway station. The officials went to railway station and found first accused in possession of about 500 gms. of heroin. He was arrested and on interrogation, it was revealed that heroin was procured by first accused for the purpose of exporting it to Mali to petitioner's husband through petitioner.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is unnecessarily implicated in this case only because petitioner's husband is in Mali. False allegation is made that heroin is transported by her. Except the statement of co-accused, there is absolutely nothing on record to show that petitioner in any manner connected with the contraband article, it is submitted.

¶24

B.A No.2251 OF 2010

¶25

¶26

This petition is opposed. Learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent submitted that it was on getting specific information that the article is being handed over to petitioner, tht the officials went to railway station. On questioning first accused after his arrest from railway station, it was revealed that heroin was proposed to be exported to Mali through petitioner. Petitioner's whereabouts are not known . She is not available in the address and proceedings under Section 82 and 83 Cr.P.C are also taken against her. If anticipatory bail is granted, it will adversely affect the investigation, it is submitted.

¶27

On hearing both sides, considering the serious nature of the allegations made and the facts and circumstances of the case, I am satisfied that petitioner is required for interrogation and if anticipatory bail is granted to petitioner, it will adversely affect the investigation. It also appears that she is an absconding accused against whom proceedings are initiated under Section 82 and 83 Cr.P.C.

¶28

Petition is dismissed.

¶29

K.HEMA JUDGE

¶30

vdv

Sarjunath v. State of Kerala and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarjunath v. State of Kerala and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vinod Kumar Vs State

Prasad Kumar Vs the S.I.of Police Koodal & Another

R.J.Shankar and Another Vs Sub Inspector of Police and Another

Sreedharan M.C. Vs State of Kerala

Joseph V.K Vs the State of Kerala

Prakash.K.P Vs State of Kerala