Dismissed

K.a.Najeeb v. the Deputy Superintendent of Police

Kerala HC1 Aug 2018CRL.A/759/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed the bail appeal filed by an accused individual against the Special Court's order rejecting his bail. The court held that the appellant played a prominent role in the offence, including arranging vehicles and aiding escape, and referred to statutory provisions barring bail.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed, affirming the bail rejection order of the NIA Court.

K.a.Najeeb Vs the Deputy Superintendent of Police — Narcotics (NDPS) | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF AUGUST 2018 / 10TH SRAVANA, 1940

¶5

CRL.A.No. 759 of 2018

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 11.5.2018, IN CRL.M.P.NO.81/2018 IN S.C.NO.1/2015 (NIA) OF THE SPECIAL COURT FOR TRIAL OF NIA CASES, ERNAKULAM.

¶7

APPELLANT/PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.5

¶8

K.A.NAJEEB, AGED 36 YEARS, HOUSE NO.VII/656, KARIMBERAPADY HOUSE, ULIYANNOOR KARA, KADUNGALLUR VILLAGE, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.P.K.MOHAMED JAMEEL

¶10

SRI.P.C.NOUSHAD

¶11

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS :

¶12

THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE NIA, KOCHI BRANCH OFFICE.

¶13

THE NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY, KOCHI BRANCH OFFICE. RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 REPRESENTED BY THE SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, NATIONAL INVESTIGATING AGENCY, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶14

R1-R2 BY ADV. SRI.M.AJAY, SPL. P.P FOR NIA

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.7.2018, THE COURT ON 1.8.2018 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

A.M.Shaffique & P. Somarajan, JJ.

¶17

---------------------------------------------------Crl. Appeal No.759 of 2018

¶18

---------------------------------------------------Dated this the 1^st day of August, 2018 JUDGMENT

¶19

P. Somarajan, J.

¶20

This appeal is preferred against the order dated 11.5.2018 of the Special Court for Trial of NIA Cases, Ernakulam in Crl.M.P.No.81 of 2017 in S.C.No.1 of 2015 by accused No.5. The bail application submitted by the petitioner/accused No.5 was rejected by the NIA Court mainly on the bar under S.43(D) 5 proviso to the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act and also on the reason that there is every chance of absconding by the accused. It is also taken note of by the trial court that in the earlier trial against the other accused persons about 100 witnesses turned hostile.

¶21

The crime was registered on the allegation of offence punishable under Sections 120B, 143, 147, 148, 149, 153A, 201, 202, 212, 307, 323, 324, 326, 341, 427 and 506(ii) of the Indian

¶22

Crl. Appeal No.759 of 2018

¶23

:: 2 ::

¶24

Penal Code, Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act and Sections 15 r/w 16, 18, 18B, 19 and 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (the UA(P) Act for short).

¶25

Petitioner is the fifth accused. He was arrested on 10.4.2015 and he is under judicial custody thereafter. It was submitted that what is alleged against accused No.5 is participation in the criminal conspiracy held at Seemas Auditorium, Perumbavoor on 28.3.2010 along with the other accused. But in the earlier trial against the other accused, the NIA Court entered into a finding against the criminal conspiracy and rendered a judgment on 30.4.2015. It is also alleged against accused No.5 that he had shifted some of the accused from the place of occurrence in an Omni van from Irumalappady to Aluva. He had also arranged treatment to some of the accused persons who sustained injury in the alleged incident. It is also brought to the notice of this court that he is involved in two other crimes. He absconded for a long period of five years. He was actually waiting with a vehicle, bearing Reg.No.KL09/R.7541 at Irumalappady so as to shift the assailants after the

¶26

Crl. Appeal No.759 of 2018

¶27

:: 3 ::

¶28

commission of offence. It is also submitted that petitioner is a leader of Popular Front of India (PFOI) and is highly influential and hence opposed the application.

¶29

The NIA Court, on consideration, dismissed the bail application against which this appeal is preferred.

¶30

Heard both sides. It is accused No.5 who came up with this bail application and the appeal against the order of rejection of bail application. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on earlier two occasions this court had extended bail to two other accused though they were charged for the offence of participation in the conspiracy behind the crime in Crl.A.No.214 of 2018 and Crl.A.No.351 of 2018. But the present petitioner standing on a different footing as the allegation is that he had provided a vehicle to the assailants to escape from the place of occurrence and waited near to the place of occurrence with a car bearing Reg.KL-09/R.7541 at Irumalappady. This would prima facie show and satisfy that he had prior knowledge about the commission of offence and he had assisted

¶31

Crl. Appeal No.759 of 2018

¶32

:: 4 ::

¶33

and facilitated the commission of offence firstly, by arranging and providing a vehicle to the assailants to escape from the scene of occurrence after its commission. Secondly, he himself has waited near to the place of occurrence with the vehicle, bearing Reg.No.KL09/R.7541, which would prima facie show his alleged role in the commission of offence. Thirdly, he took the assailants to a safe place and provided them with medical treatment in connection with the injury alleged to have been sustained by them during the course of commission of offence. All these would prima facie show that he had played a prominent role in the commission of offence.

¶34

In the said circumstances, we could not find any reason for interference with the order passed by the NIA Court. Hence the appeal fails, deserves only dismissal. We do so.

¶35

sd/A.M. Shaffique Judge

¶36

sd/P. Somarajan Judge

¶37

ahz/

K.a.Najeeb v. the Deputy Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.a.Najeeb v. the Deputy Superintendent of Police

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

Divya S Vs Anil P

K.K. Viswambharan Vs Sumathy Viswambharan @ Suma

Sajayan Vs Peter Damien

Mujeeb Vs Sub Inspector of Police

Kunju @ Devasya Vs State of Kerala

V.v.Prabhakaran Vs T.Chandramathi