Dismissed

Vinish Kumar v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC6 Dec 2018Bail Appl./7110/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed the bail application of the second accused in Crime No. 14/2018 involving offenses under the NDPS Act. The court held that since the lower court granted an extension of the remand period with effect from the expiry of the initial period, the petitioner's contention regarding procedural delay was redundant. Although relying on Rambeer Shokeen, the court refused ba

What did the court decide?

Bail application fails and is dismissed.

Vinish Kumar Vs State of Kerala — Narcotics (NDPS) | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

¶4

THURSDAY ,THE 06TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 15TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 7110 of 2018

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMP 1142/2018 of I ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, TRIVANDRUM DATED 06-07-2018

¶7

CRIME NO. 14/2018 OF Trivandrum Excise Circle Office, Thiruvananthapuram

¶8

PETITIONER/2nd ACCUSED:

¶9

VINISH KUMAR AGED 39 YEARS S/O.SIVADASAN, CHAKKAMURIPARAMBIL VEEDU, THANIPADAM, PEECHI VILLAGE, CHUVANNAMANNU (P.O), PATTIKKD, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.NIREESH MATHEW

¶11

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶12

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI- 682 031.

¶13

OTHER PRESENT:

¶14

PP S.SAJJU

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.12.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

B.A.7110/18

ORDER

Petitioner herein is the second accused in Crime No.14 of 2018 of Excise Circle Office, Thiruvananthapuram for offences punishable under sections 20(b)(ii)(C) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

¶20

The allegation of the prosecution is that, on 25.05.2018 at 5.30p.m., first accused purchased 10.202 kilograms of Hashish Oil from the second accused on payment of a consideration of Rs.13,50,000/-. He was intercepted and is in custody since 26.05.2018. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, he filed an application before the expiry of the statutory period for granting bail. At that time, prosecution filed an application for extension of remand period. Pending consideration, bail application was adjourned. After the extension was granted, bail application is stated to have been dismissed. Petitioner herein challenged this relying on the decision in Rambeer Shokeen v. State of NCT of Delhi (2018 KHC

¶21

6054).

¶22

It seems that the above contention has become redundant now since the extension was granted by the court below, which has taken effect from the date of expiry of the first statutory period. Having considered this and the serious nature of allegations attributed against the petitioner herein

¶23

B.A.7110/18

¶24

¶25

of having transacted commercial quantity of drug, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner herein.

¶26

Bail application fails and is dismissed.

Sd/-

SUNIL THOMAS

JUDGE

Sbna/

Vinish Kumar v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinish Kumar 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shafeela Vs the State of Kerala

Nazeema Vs State of Kerala

V.R.Unnikrishnan Vs State of Kerala

Ajay Joseph Vs State of Kerala

Rajan.v Vs the State of Kerala

Aneesh N.V. Vs State of Kerala