Allowed

Anil Jain v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC17 Aug 2016Bail Appl./5893/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala granted regular bail to the petitioner, 3rd accused in an NDPS case, emphasizing that sole reliance on statements of bail-received co-accused was insufficient for detention. Strict conditions regarding residency, witness contact, and passport surrender were imposed.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail with one solvent surety resident of Kerala and one relative/resident surety, subject to non-interference with witnesses and passport surrender.

Anil Jain Vs State of Kerala — Narcotics (NDPS) | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF AUGUST 2016/26TH SRAVANA, 1938

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 5893 of 2016

¶6

CRIME NO. 2388/2015 OF CHANGANASSERY POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NO.3:

¶8

ANIL JAIN, AGED 53 YEARS, S/O. LATE OMPRAKASH JAIN, S/180, SCHOOL BLOCK, SHAKARPUR, NEW DELHI - 110 092.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU (SR.) SRI.VIPIN NARAYAN SMT.MITHA SUDHINDRAN

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT:

¶11

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.LALIZA T.Y

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17-08-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

msv/

P. UBAID, J

B.A.No.5893 of 2016

Dated this the 17^th day of August, 2016

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

The petitioner herein is the 3^rd accused in Crime No.2388/2015 of the Changanassery Police Station, registered under Section 22(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. He seeks regular bail from this Court under Section 439 Cr.P.C. He has been in judicial custody since 20.06.2016.

¶20

This is a case where some quantity of psychotropic substance was seized from the possession of the accused Nos.1 and 2. After investigation, the police submitted final report against the two accused, in court. Thereafter, further investigation was made by the police as permitted by the court, and during the further investigation, the petitioner herein was arraigned as the 3^rd accused. He is said to be the person who supplied the psychotropic substances to the accused Nos.1 and 2. The petitioner now seeks bail from this Court under section 439 Cr.P.C., on dismissal of his application

¶21

¶22

B.A.No.5893 of 2016

¶23

by the learned Special Judge, Thodupuzha.

¶24

On a perusal of the materials, I find that the only material relied on by the prosecution to implicate the petitioner herein as the person who supplied materials to the others, is the statements given by the accused Nos.1 and 2. It is not known whether the police has any other definite material to connect the petitioner herein with the substance seized from the possession of the accused Nos.1 and 2. The learned Special Judge has already granted bail to the accused Nos.1 and 2. The 1^st accused was granted bail on 10.12.2015, and the 2^nd accused was granted bail on 24.05.2016. It was thereafter, arrest of the petitioner as the 3^rd accused was recorded in the proceedings during the further investigation made by the police. The persons who were actually found possessing psychotropic substances in huge quantity are on bail. It would be inappropriate to deny bail to the petitioner herein, when the prosecution does not have any definite material except the statements of the other accused, to implicate him. The petitioner being a native of New Delhi, appropriate conditions to ensure his presence during trial are felt absolutely necessary.

¶25

In the result, this application is allowed. The petitioner is

¶26

¶27

B.A.No.5893 of 2016

¶28

ordered to be released on bail on his executing a bond with two solvent sureties for Rs.1 Lakh each to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge. Bail is granted on condition that,

¶29

a) One of the sureties shall be a resident of the State of Kerala, having definite identity, address and solvency here.

¶30

b) The other surety shall be a close relative to the petitioner having definite identity and solvency. If no such surety can be produced, the second surety also can be a resident of Kerala having definite identity, address, and solvency here.

¶31

c) The petitioner shall not leave the State of Kerala, without the previous permission of the trial court.

¶32

d) The petitioner shall not in any manner influence or intimidate the witnesses, and he shall not have any contact with the material witnesses directly or over telephone or otherwise.

¶33

e) The petitioner shall surrender his passport before the learned Magistrate within seven days from the date of his release. If he does not have passport, he will file an affidavit to that effect.

¶34

Sd/P.UBAID, JUDGE

¶35

¶36

// True Copy // P.A. to Judge

Anil Jain v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Jain 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

Arunkumar Vs State of Kerala

Martin Vs State of Kerala

Padmavathi Amma Vs State of Kerala

Chellamma Vs State of Kerala

Riyas Vs State of Kerala

Sahad Vs State of Kerala