Allowed

Shri.Kamal Singh v. Special Public Prosecutor

Kerala HC6 Dec 2010Bail Appl./7576/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala granted bail to two accused charged under the NDPS Act for joint possession of 356 grams of heroin. The court held that the quantity was not commercial per individual but imposed strict bail conditions requiring sureties, hair cutting, and biometric attendance.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail with effect from 13/12/2010, subject to bond of Rupees One lakh, two local sureties, confinement to Kozhikode district, biometric reporting, and availability for interrogation.

Shri.Kamal Singh Vs Special Public Prosecutor — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR

¶4

MONDAY, THE 6TH DECEMBER 2010 / 15TH AGRAHAYANA 1932

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 7576 of 2010()

¶6

----------------------------(O.R.No.01/2010 OF DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE, REGIONAL UNIT, CALICUT)

¶7

CRMP.85/2010 of SPL. COURT (NDPS ACT CASES), VADAKARA

¶8

APPLICANTS/ACCUSED 1 & 2

¶9

¶10

SHRI.KAMAL SINGH, S/O.NAVAL SINGH, 53, VILLAGE SEMALI MEVAD, TEHSIL NEEMUCH, DIST NEEMUCH, MADHYA PRADESH.

¶11

SHRI.DILEEP SINGH, S/O.BHUVAN SINGH, VILLAGE SEMALI MEVAD, TEHSIL NEEMUCH, DIST NEEMUCH, MADHYA PRADESH.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.M.REVIKRISHNAN SRI.VIPIN NARAYAN

¶13

RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT

¶14

¶15

SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, REPRESENTING THE SENIOR INTELLIGENCE OFFICE, DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE, CALICUT.

¶16

SRI.C.P.UDAYABHANU, SC FOR DR1

¶17

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

V.RAMKUMAR, J.

¶19

Bail Application No.7576 of 2010 --------------------------------------------------Dated this the 06^th day of December, 2010

¶20

ORDER

¶21

In this Petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C., the petitioners, who are accused Nos.1 & 2 in O.R.No.01 of 2010 of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Regional Unit, Calicut, for offences punishable under Sections 8(c) 21, 28 & 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (N.D.P.S. Act), seek their enlargement on bail. The petitioners were arrested on 23/06/2010.

¶22

I heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶23

Eventhough the total quantity of heroine recovered was 356 grams, it was recovered from both A1 and 2 jointly and therefore it may not amount to commercial quantity vis-a-vis each of the petitioners is concerned so as to attract the restriction under Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act. But since petitioners belong to Madhya Pradesh, their release can only be subject to strict conditions ensuring their availability for trial. Accordingly, the petitioners are directed to be released on bail with effect from 13/12/2010 on each of them

¶24

Bail Appln.No.7576/2010

¶25

: 2 :

¶26

executing a bond for `1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) with 2 solvent sureties both of whom shall be local sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the Special Judge (N.D.P.S. Act Cases), Vadakara and subject to the following conditions:-

¶27

The petitioners shall stay confined to the limits of Kozhikode district and shall furnish their local address both to the Special Court (N.D.P.S. Act Cases), Vadakara as well as to the Investigating Officer.

¶28

The petitioners shall report before the Investigating Officer between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m. on all Wednesdays.

¶29

The petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation as and when required by the police at any time till the filing of the final report.

¶30

The petitioners shall not influence or intimidate the prosecution witnesses nor shall they attempt to tamper with the evidence for the prosecution.

¶31

Bail Appln.No.7576/2010

¶32

: 3 :

¶33

The petitioners shall not commit any offence while on bail.

¶34

If the petitioners commit breach of any of the above conditions, the bail granted to them shall be liable to be

¶35

cancelled.

¶36

This application is allowed as above.

¶37

V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE

¶38

skj

Shri.Kamal Singh v. Special Public Prosecutor

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri.Kamal Singh v. Special Public Prosecutor

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

Jameela & Others Vs State of Kerala

Rahul Bhuleyan Vs State of Kerala

N.Ashokan Vs State

T.P.Shahis and 3 Others Vs the State of Kerala

Rahul Vs State of Kerala

Ali Vs Sub Insepctor of Police