Dismissed

Yedhu Rajipat v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC13 Jul 2020Bail Appl./4225/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. by two accused charged under the NDPS Act for alleged involvement in the sale of Ganja. The High Court dismissed the application, holding that the offence is serious and release would hamper investigation and prejudice society.

What did the court decide?

Application for regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. dismissed; accused to remain in judicial custody.

Yedhu Rajipat Vs State of Kerala — Narcotics (NDPS) | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON

¶4

MONDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JULY 2020 / 22ND ASHADHA, 1942

¶5

Bail Appl..No.4225 OF 2020

¶6

CRIME NO.691/2020 OF Irinjalakuda Police Station , Thrissur

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:

¶8

1 YEDHU RAJIPAT, AGED 29 YEARS, S/O. RAJIPTH, VADEPPARAMPIL VEEDU, MADAPLATHU DESOM, VADAKKEKKARA, ERNAKULAM PIN – 683 521.

¶9

2 VIJU, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O. SEBASTIAN, KALLARACKAL VEEDU, GOTHURUTH THEKKEKKADAVU, CHENNAMANGALAM, PIN – 683 512.

¶10

BY ADV. SHRI. K. NIRMALAN

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

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

¶13

2 INSPECTOR OF POLICE, IRINGALAKKUDA POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.

¶14

SRI. AMJAD ALI, SR. PP

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.07.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

Bail Appl.No.4225 OF 2020

¶17

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Dated this the 13th day of July 2020

¶20

This is an application filed under Section

¶21

439 of Cr.P.C seeking regular bail.

¶22

The petitioners are accused 1 and 2 in crime No.691/2020 of Irinjalakkuda Police Station for having allegedly committed offence punishable under Section 20(b) IIB and Section 29 of the NDPS Act.

¶23

The prosecution case in brief is that, on 23.05.2020 at about 2.00 pm while the

¶24

petitioners were traveling in a lorry bearing Registration No.KL/17/L/3586 they were

¶25

intercepted by the Police and immediately the 1^st accused jumped out from the lorry, fell

¶26

down and lost one of his tooth. Both the accused were apprehended and thereafter, on

¶27

search, 2 kgs. of Ganja was seized from the

¶28

Bail Appl.No.4225 OF 2020

¶29

¶30

cabin of the lorry, there was also Rs.15,500/-

¶31

in cash, which according to the investigating

¶32

officer is sale proceeds on after sale of

¶33

Ganja. The petitioners were arrested on that

¶34

day and have been in judicial custody since then. On questioning the accused, they

¶35

informed that there are two other accused

¶36

involved in the selling of Ganja and they were implicated as accused 3 and 4.

¶37

The learned counsel Sri. Nirmalan,

¶38

appearing for the petitioners submits that the

¶39

petitioners are innocent and that they have

¶40

been falsely implicated in this case and

¶41

nothing was recovered from them. It is

¶42

further stated that, the 1^st accused was

¶43

manhandled by the Police as a result of which

¶44

he lost one of his tooth. In order to defend

¶45

themselves from allegations of custodial

¶46

attrocity, they have foisted a false case of

¶47

seizing Ganja from the lorry. The accused

¶48

Bail Appl.No.4225 OF 2020

¶49

¶50

have been in custody since 23.05.2020 and

¶51

hence they may be released on bail.

¶52

Learned Public Prosecutor, Sri. Amjad Ali vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the 2^nd petitioner who is

¶53

the 2^nd accused has 11 criminal cases

¶54

registered against him at various Police stations for offences under Abkari Act, IPC and COPTA, and therefore, he is a notorious criminal and he is not entitled to bail at this stage. Moreover the co-accused, 3^rd and 4^th are also involved in other NDPS cases. They were arrested in connection with the another NDPS case of transporting commercial quantity of Ganja and hence it is clear that the petitioners were all part of a gang

¶55

involved in sale of Ganja. Hence they may not be released on bail. Having considered the

¶56

entirety of the facts and circumstances of this case, I find that petitioners were prima

¶57

Bail Appl.No.4225 OF 2020

¶58

¶59

facie involved in sale of Ganja and therefore, involved in a very serious crime which effects the society at large. When the liberty of the accused under Article 21 of the Constitution

¶60

of India is to be weighed with the consequences of the criminal act of the accused in which they are involved, releasing them on bail would definitely hamper the investigation as also be prejudicial to the society at large.

¶61

Hence, the petition is dismissed.

¶62

Sd/-

¶63

ASHOK MENON JUDGE

¶64

SPR

Yedhu Rajipat v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yedhu Rajipat 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sinan, Vs State of Kerala

Jomon, Vs State of Kerala

Shihab Ali Vs State of Kerala

Laiju V.G. Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Khader, Vs State of Kerala

Edmond @ Sam @ Syam Vs State of Kerala