In this bail application under Section 439 CrPC regarding a charge under Section 22(c) NDPS Act for commercial quantity of drugs, the High Court declined to grant bail. The court held that there were no substantial probable causes to believe the accused was not guilty of the offence.
None. Bail application dismissed with no order as to costs.
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 RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE 2018 / 30TH JYAISHTA, 1940
Bail Appl..No. 3749 of 2018
CRIME NO. 43/2018 OF AREACODE POLICE STATION , MALAPPURAM
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED.
BALAJI @ ILANKESWARANRTHIK AGED 43 YEARS, S/O MOORTHI, H.NO.659, NADAVAKKARE, NEAR SARVESWARA TEMPLE, MAHESWARAPURAM PO, KUMBAKONAM, THANCHAVOOR DISTRICT, TAMILNADU, PIN-612402.
BY ADVS.SRI.KRISHNADAS P. NAIR SMT.K.L.SREEKALA SRI.HARIDAS P.NAIR SRI.M.A.VINOD SRI.M.RAJESH KUMAR SMT.B.SABITHA (DESOM)
RESPONDENT(S):
STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
R BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.ANAS K.A
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20-06-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
AD
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, J
B.A No.3749 of 2018
Dated this the 20th day of June, 2018
ORDER
B.A No.3749 of 2018
2
his further detention is clearly uncalled for. It is further submitted that there are discrepancies in the FIR with regard to the time at which the information was received in the police station and this would affect the credibility of the prosecution version itself.
5.The learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer with much vehemence. It was submitted that commercial quantity of MDA has been seized and the investigation conducted till date clearly points to his involvement. It is submitted that the applicant herein is the main supplier of narcotics in the State and the network of dealers, suppliers and the source of drugs are yet to be unearthed. It is further urged that the parameters laid down in Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985 will have to be satisfied as the quantity seized is commercial in nature. Highlighting the deleterious effects and deadly impact of the substance, it is submitted that the legislature has included Section 37 in the Statute Book to deter such nefarious activities. The learned Public Prosecutor referred to the decisions of the Apex Court in Union of India (UOI) v. Shri Shiv Shanker Kesari [(2007) 7 SCC 798] and Union of India v. Ram Samujh and Another [(1999) 9 SCC 429] to support his
B.A No.3749 of 2018
3
contentions.
7.The jurisdiction of the court to grant bail is circumscribed by the provision of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Bail can be granted in a case where there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. It is the mandate of the legislature which is required to be followed. The expression used in Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the Act is “reasonable grounds” which expression means something more than prima facie grounds. It connotes substantial probable causes for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offence charged and this reasonable belief contemplated in turn points to existence of such facts and circumstances as are sufficient in themselves to justify recording of satisfaction that the accused is not guilty of the offence charged. It is for the limited purpose essentially confined to the question of releasing the accused on bail that the court is called upon to see if there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty and
B.A No.3749 of 2018
4
records its satisfaction about the existence of such grounds. For that purpose, the court is not required to consider the matter as if it is pronouncing a judgement of acquittal and recording a finding of not guilty. The court has also to record a finding that while on bail the accused is not likely to commit any offence and there should also exist some materials to come to such conclusion.
8.Having considered the submissions and after having gone through the materials on record, I am afraid that there are no substantial probable causes for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offence charged. The applicant has not been able to point out the existence of any such facts or circumstances as are sufficient in themselves to justify recording of satisfaction that he is not guilty of the offence charged.
In that view of the matter, I am not inclined to release the applicant at this stage. This application is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, JUDGE
AD
//TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted under Section 439 CrPC in a case involving commercial quantity of drugs under the NDPS Act.
Whether there exist reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty of the offence charged under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Union of India v. Shri Shiv Shanker KesariReferred¶26
Union of India (UOI) v. Shri Shiv Shanker Kesari [(2007) 7 SCC 798] · Who else cites this
Union of India v. Ram SamujhReferred¶26
Union of India v. Ram Samujh and Another [(1999) 9 SCC 429] · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Balaji @ Ilankeswaran Rthik
State of Kerala
Raja Vijayaraghavan V
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
