Held applications for regular bail dismissed as second accused faces prima facie evidence including his own confession. Court directs trial court to expedite proceedings.
Bail applications dismissed; trial to be expedited.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID
MONDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/2ND KARTHIKA, 1938
Bail Appl..No. 7029 of 2016 ()
OR.NO.3/2015 OF NARCOTIC CONTROL BUREAU, SUB ZONE, COCHIN.
APPLICANT/ACCUSED NO.2:
ANIL JAIN, AGED 53 YEARS, S/O.LATE OMPRAKASH JAIN, 292/4, JOODBAGH VILLAGE, KOTLA MUBARKPUR, NEW DELHI-3.
BY SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU (SENIOR ADVOCATE) ADVS.SRI.VIPIN NARAYAN SMT.MITHA SUDHINDRAN
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, NARCOTIC CONTROL BUREAU, SUB ZONE, COCHIN, REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.MVS.NAMBOOTHIRY
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24-10-2016 ALONG WITH BA.7597/2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
mbr/
P.UBAID, J.
============================
B.A.Nos.7029 & 7597 of 2016
============================ Dated this the 24th day of October, 2016
ORDER
The petitioner in B.A.No.7597 of 2016 is the first
accused in O.R.No.3 of 2015 of the Narcotic Control Bureau, registered under Section 8(c) read with Section 22 (c), 25, 27 (a), 28 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and psychotropic substances Act, and the petitioner in B.A.No.7029 of 2016 is the second accused therein. The two petitioners seek regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on dismissal of their application for regular bail by the Special Court. The case is now pending before the Special Court as S.C.No.413 of 2016. The court below denied bail on the ground that trial will be affected and obstructed, if the petitioners are granted bail. The second accused is a native of New Delhi.
B.A.Nos.7029 & 7597 of 2016 2
accused is the subject matter of this crime. The second accused is being prosecuted as the person who supplied the said quantity of psychotropic substance to the first accused. The second accused claims to be a person licensed under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. It is not known how he could, under the said license, sell that much huge quantity of psychotropic substance. As against the second accused, the prosecution relies on the statements given by him under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, and as against the first accused, the prosecution relies on the seizure of substance from the direct possession of the accused. The learned counsel for the second accused submitted that it was not with any bad intention or illegal object he supplied psychotropic substance, and he in fact sold it under license. The learned counsel also submitted that the legal sanctity of the statements given by accused under Section 67 of the NDPS Act is now being examined by a larger bench of the Honourable Supreme Court. That legal aspect cannot be now gone into. In another crime, the second accused was granted bail as per the order
B.A.Nos.7029 & 7597 of 2016 3
dated 17.8.2016. That is a case where the prosecution relies mainly on the confessions of the co-accused. But, here the position is different. Pendency of this crime was not noticed by this Court when the second accused was granted bail in Crime No.2388 of 2015 of the Changanassery Police Station, registered under Section 22 (c) of the NDPS Act. That he has obtained bail in the other crime will not entitle him to claim bail in the present case where definite prima facie materials including his own confession statements are there against him.
on the increase in this State. The quantity of substance seized from the possession of the first accused will spoil and ruin the life of hundreds of youngsters. I find definite the possibility of the two accused absconding from legal process, if they are released on bail. The matter is now before the trial court. Trial can very well be expedited, and the case can be disposed of at the earliest. When there is the possibility of trial being obstructed, it would be unsafe and inappropriate to grant bail to the petitioners.
B.A.Nos.7029 & 7597 of 2016 4
In the result, these two applications are
dismissed. However, the court below is directed that the trial in S.C.No.413 of 2016 shall be expedited, and case shall be disposed of at the earliest.
Sd/- P.UBAID, JUDGE
rkj
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
3 issues framed by the court
Whether bail can be granted to the second accused charged with supplying commercial quantities of psychotropic substances where confession statements are available against him.
Whether the pendency of the case makes it appropriate to grant bail given the possibility of obstruction of trial.
Whether the risk of absconding and the nature of the charge justify denial of bail under the NDPS Act.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
ANIL JAIN
IMPUGNED ORDER/AUTHORITIES
P.UBAID
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
