Dismissed

Rajendran v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC22 Mar 2019Bail Appl./1022/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court dismissed a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. filed by an accused involved in large-scale narcotic drug trafficking. The court held that under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, bail cannot be granted unless the accused has no reasonable grounds for guilt, and mere delay in trial is not a sufficient ground for release in such cases.

What did the court decide?

The bail application was dismissed; the trial court directed to expedite proceedings.

Rajendran Vs State of Kerala — Narcotics (NDPS) | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 1ST CHAITHRA, 1941

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 1022 of 2019

¶6

CRIME NO.766/2017 OF VALAPPAD POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1:

¶8

RAJENDRAN, AGED 54 YEARS, S/O. SADASIVAN, MUTTAKKATHIL HOUSE, NEAR NELLIKUNNU CHURCH, PALAPILLI P.O., KOTTARAKARA KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU (SR.) SMT.POOJA PANKAJ SRI.AJEESH K.SASI SRI.M.REVIKRISHNAN SRI.P.M.RAFIQ SRI.THOMAS J.ANAKKALUNKAL,CGC SRI.V.C.SARATH SRI.VIPIN NARAYAN SRUTHY N. BHAT

¶10

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶11

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

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.ANAS K.A.

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.03.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

BA:1022/2019

ORDER

This application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. is filed by the 1^st accused in Crime No.766 of 2017 registered at the Valappad Police Station under Section 20(b)(ii)C of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

¶18

Based on secret information, a car bearing Reg.No.KL-24/E1406 and a pick-up van bearing Reg.No.KL-09/M-2430, which were parked at the Kothakulam Beach, were intercepted by the detecting officer and after complying with all the formalities, search was conducted. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 were found inside the car and search of the vehicles resulted in the seizure of 25.790 kgs of Ganja from the dickey of the car. Thereafter, the pick-up van in which the 3^rd accused along with the 4^th accused were travelling was searched. From a secret compartment in the cabin platform, 42.730 kgs of Ganja were seized. The contraband articles were sealed and labelled in accordance with the procedure prescribed and the accused were arrested. Investigation was conducted by the Circle Inspector of Police and on its completion, final report was laid on 31.7.2017 before the Court of Session, Thrissur.

¶19

BA:1022/2019

¶20

¶21

The learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that the earlier applications filed by the applicant were dismissed by

¶22

this Court by Annexures-A to D orders. According to the learned counsel, though more than a year has elapsed, the trial has not commenced till date. It is prayed that having regard to the long period of detention undergone by the applicant, he be issued with orders of his release. He would also contend that mandatory formalities were not observed by the investigating officer.

¶23

The learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer. He pointed out that huge quantity of Ganja classified under the Act as “commercial quantity” was seized from the possession of the accused. He would further contend that the contentions advanced by the 3^rd accused were considered by this Court and his application was

¶24

dismissed as per order reported in Pavithran v. State of Kerala [2018 (1) KHC 399]. He would remind the court that unless there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused are not guilty of the offence and that they are not likely to commit any offence while on bail, the applicant cannot be released. He would further contend that huge quantity of contraband, much beyond commercial quantity, was brought from Chattisgarh and the vehicle from which the articles were seized, was registered in the name of the applicant. Highlighting the

¶25

BA:1022/2019

¶26

¶27

deleterious effects and deadly impact of the substance seized from the possession of the applicant, it is submitted that the legislature has included Section 37 in the Statute Book to deter such nefarious activities by traffickers such as the applicant.

¶28

I have considered the contentions advanced.

¶29

The applicant herein was found in possession of narcotic drugs, the possession of which is banned under law. To deal with the menace of dangerous drugs flooding the market, Parliament has provided that a person accused of offence under the Act should not be released on bail during trial unless the mandatory conditions provided under Section 37 that there are reasonable grounds for holding that the accused is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail are satisfied. The applicant has no case that there are reasonable grounds for holding that he is not guilty of such offence.

¶30

It is by now settled that being under custody for an extended period is not a ground for release on bail, particularly in cases which involve seizure of narcotic drugs. This question was considered by the Apex Court in Rajesh Ranjan Yadav @ Pappu Yadav v. CBI through its Director [(2007) 1 SCC 70], wherein it

¶31

BA:1022/2019

¶32

¶33

was observed as follows:

¶34

“We are of the opinion that while it is true that Article 21 is of great importance because it enshrines the fundamental right to individual liberty, but at the same time a balance has to be struck between the right to individual liberty and the interest of society. No right can be absolute, and reasonable restrictions can be placed on them. While it is true that one of the considerations in deciding whether to grant bail to an accused or not is whether he has been in jail for a long time, the court has also to take into consideration other facts and circumstances, such as the interest of the society.”

¶35

8. In Ash Mohammad v. Shiv Raj Singh @ Lalla Babu and

¶36

another [(2012) 9 SCC 446], this Court in the same vein had observed that though the period of custody is a relevant factor, the

¶37

same has to be weighed simultaneously with the totality of the circumstances and the criminal antecedents.

¶38

Thus, while considering an application for bail, this Court has to dovetail two conflicting demands namely, on one hand, the requirements of the society for being shielded from the hazards of being exposed to the misadventures of a person alleged to have committed a crime, and on the other hand, the fundamental canon of criminal jurisprudence viz, the presumption of innocence of an accused till he is found guilty. The excessive and unregulated use of drugs has emerged as a major social problem and has crossed the border of caste, class, creed, sex and the nation. It is like a curse for developing

¶39

BA:1022/2019

¶40

¶41

country like India which has burdening problems like poverty, unemployment and overpopulation. Drug abuse affects individuals, their families and the society as a whole. It is a proven fact that drug abuse affects the law and order, economic production and human welfare. The spread and entrenchment of drug abuse needs to be prevented, as the cost to the people, environment and economy is colossal. The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, was enacted with stringent provisions to curb this menace. The Act envisages a minimum term of 10 years imprisonment extendable to 20 years and fine of Rs. 1 lakh extendable up to Rs. 2 lakhs for the offenders. It is for this purpose that the Parliament has provided that in the event of the Prosecutor opposing the application, unless the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail, the accused cannot be enlarged on bail. This is the mandate under Section 37 of the Act and the same has to be complied with.

¶42

In the facts and circumstances, the contentions now advanced cannot be a reason to grant bail to the applicant. There are no substantial probable causes for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offence charged. It would not be possible to conclude that

¶43

BA:1022/2019

¶44

¶45

he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. 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. It is made clear that expression of any opinion above shall not be treated as an expression on merits of the case.

¶46

I direct the court below to take note of the fact that the

¶47

applicant herein is an under trial prisoner and make all earnest endeavour to expedite the trial and take the matter to its logical conclusion. While disposing B.A.No. 8789 of 2018 dated 14.2.2019, this Court had directed the court below to expedite the trial proceedings and take the matter to its logical conclusion within a period of nine months. In view of the above, no specific orders are required to be issued in the instant case.

¶48

Subject to the above directions, this application will stand

¶49

dismissed.

¶50

SD/-

¶51

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., JUDGE

¶52

KRJ

¶53

//TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE

Rajendran v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendran 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

Yousafali Vs the State of Kerala

Nissar, Vs State of Kerala

Jiji George, Vs State of Kerala

Y.M.Bright Vs State of Kerala

Joseph Edward Jacob, Vs the State of Kerala

Sajeevan, Vs the State of Kerala