Dismissed

Shuhaib v. the Circle Inspector of Excise

Kerala HC17 Feb 2016Bail Appl./138/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

On February 17, 2016, the High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam, dismissed a bail application filed by Shuhaib, the second accused in a case involving the recovery of over 8 kg of ganja. The court declined to examine the merits at this stage and refused bail due to the serious nature of the allegations and the invocation of Section 29 of the NDPS Act.

What the court decided

AI extract

Shuhaib Vs the Circle Inspector of Excise — Narcotics (NDPS) | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/28TH MAGHA, 1937

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 138 of 2016

¶6

CRIME NO. 1/2016 OF ALUVA EXCISE CIRCLE OFFICE, ERNAKULAM.

¶7

PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED IN THE CRIME:

¶8

SHUHAIB, AGED 22, S/O.ZAKIER HUSSAIN, KORATTIYIL HOUSE, MANJALUNGAL HOUSE, PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD-679 313.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.JOHNSON MANAYANI SRI.JEEVAN MATHEW MANAYANI

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT:

¶11

1. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF EXCISE, ALUVA, ALUVA P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶12

2. STATE OF KERALA,

¶13

REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.

¶14

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.R.REMA

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17-02-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

mbr/

¶17

SUNIL THOMAS, J

¶18

B.A.NO.138 OF 2016

¶19

Dated this the 17^th day of February, 2016

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

The petitioner is the second accused in Crime No.1/2016 of Excise Circle Office, Aluva for the offences punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(B) 25 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

¶22

The allegation of the prosecution is that, the

¶23

Excise Circle Inspector intercepted the first accused, while he was travelling in a vehicle and 1.500 kgs of Ganja was

¶24

recovered from him. The disclosure by him led to the room which was taken on rent by the second accused and from his cupboard 2.690 kgs of Ganja was allegedly recovered. From the possession of the third accused 2.020 kgs of Ganja was also recovered, totalling to 8.210 kgs. The petitioner was arrested on 03.01.2016 and is in custody since then. He seeks bail.

¶25

Heard and examined the records.

¶26

The learned counsel for the petitioner

¶27

vehemently contended that it does not stand to reason

¶28

B.A.NO.138 OF 2016 2

¶29

that the petitioner concealed huge quantity of contraband items in his cupboard. It was also contended that he was not in conscious possession of the contraband and the only mistake committed by him was he had taken a building on rent, had permitted the others to occupy and without his knowledge the other might have brought the Ganga.

¶30

At this stage, I am not inclined to go into the merits of above contentions since even according to the prosecution the first accused was intercepted outside the building and the second and third accused were found in separate possession of contraband articles. Section 29 is also invoked to rope in conscious possession with respect to all the three accused. Having regard to the serious nature of the allegation, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage.

¶31

The bail application is dismissed.

¶32

sd/- SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE.

¶33

R.AV

¶34

//True Copy//

¶35

PA to Judge

Shuhaib v. the Circle Inspector of Excise

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Shuhaib v. the Circle Inspector of Excise

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ratheesh Vs State of Kerala

Sasi Vs State of Kerala

Sudheer Vs the State of Kerala

Ajaya Khosh Vs State of Kerala

Varkey Vs State of Kerala

Nikhil Moolathil Vs the State of Kerala