Allowed

P.v.Abdul Salam v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC11 May 2010Bail Appl./2573/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. by an accused impleaded in an NDPS case based on a telephone number. The Special Court had previously dismissed the bail application. The High Court, noting the petitioner's undertaking and the status of co-accused, granted bail subject to conditions including appearance in court.

What did the court decide?

The bail application was allowed; the petitioner was released on bail on executing a bond for Rs. 25,000 with two solvent sureties.

P.v.Abdul Salam Vs State of Kerala — Narcotics (NDPS) | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 11TH MAY 2010 / 21ST VAISAKHA 1932

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 2573 of 2010() ----------------------------------------S.C.5/2010 OF SPECIAL COURT (NDPS ACT CASES), VADAKARA. ....................

¶6

PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶7

----------------------------------

¶8

P.V. ABDUL SALAM, S/O.KUNHIBABA, HOUSE NO.23/97, NOONIGANAKAM HOUSE, J.M. ROAD, NAGARAM, PONNANI, MALAPPURAM.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.SUNNY MATHEW

¶10

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶11

--------------------------------------------

¶12

STATE OF KERALA THROUGH THE EXCISE INSPECTOR, SULTHAN BATHERY EXCISE RANGE, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶13

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.V. TEKCHAND.

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/05/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

rs.

¶16

P.Q. BARKATH ALI, J.

¶17

B.A. No. 2573 OF 2010

¶18

Dated this the 11^th day of May, 2010

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

~~~~~~~~

¶21

This is a bail application filed by the accused in S.C.5/2010 on the file of the Court of the Special Judge (NDPS Act Cases) Vadakara under section 439 of the Cr.P.C.

¶22

The petitioner is the 3^rd accused in Crime No.1/2005 of Excise Inspector, Sulthan Bathery. The allegation against the petitioner is that on 22.1.2005, he along with accused Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 transported 50kgs. and 950 grams of opium from Rajastan to Kerala in a mini lorry bearing registration No. RJ-06-G-2199 and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 18(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. The case was charge sheeted and taken on file as S.C.No.19/2005. Accused Nos.1 and 2 faced the trial and the 1^st accused was convicted and the 2^nd accused was acquitted by the lower court. As the petitioner was absconding, the case against him was transferred to L.P. register as L.P.No.10/2006. The petitioner was arrested and produced on 5.4.2010 before the

¶23

BA No.2573/2010

¶24

¶25

lower court and the case was refiled as S.C.No.5/2005. The learned Special Judge (NDPS Act Cases) Vadakara dismissed his bail application.

¶26

It is alleged in the petition that the petitioner was never absconding that he had filed Cr.M.C. 2598/2005 for discharging him and also approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

¶27

Notice given to the learned Public Prosecutor. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. This petition is strongly opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶28

It is the admitted fact that he was once released on bail. Further, the counsel for the petitioner produced the judgments of the lower court, in which the 1^st accused was convicted and the 2^nd accused was acquitted. The petitioner was impleaded in this case as an accused only on the basis of a telephone number given by the 1^st accused. The petitioner

¶29

BA No.2573/2010

¶30

¶31

undertakes that he will appear before the trial court on all hearing dates. In these circumstances, I feel that the petitioner can be released on bail.

¶32

In the result, the application is allowed. The petitioner shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs.25,000/with two solvent sureties for like sum each to the satisfaction of

¶33

the lower court on the following condition:-

¶34

The petitioner shall appear before the trial court on all hearing dates, failing which the lower court can cancel his bail.

¶35

(P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JUDGE)

¶36

P.v.Abdul Salam v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.v.Abdul Salam v. State of Kerala

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

Balakrishnan Vs State of Kerala

Ajith Vs State of Kerala

Ajith Vs State of Kerala

Easwaran Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Rasheed Vs State

Gopalakrishnan Vs State of Kerala