Dismissed

Hijas v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC7 Oct 2020Bail Appl./5744/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed a successive bail application by a COVID-19 positive accused convicted under the NDPS Act. The court held that the bail embargo for commercial quantity offenses continues throughout the trial, precluding leniency despite the pandemic.

What did the court decide?

Bail application dismissed; directs accused to face trial; Designated Court to dispose of matter expeditiously.

Hijas 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

WEDNESDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 15TH ASWINA, 1942 Bail Appl.No.5744 OF 2020

¶5

CRIME NO.426/2020 OF Kondotty Police Station, Malappuram

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

HIJAS, AGED 19 YEARS, VEETTILAKATH HOUSE, MANKAV P.O., KOZHIKODE -673 007.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW KURIAKOSE

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM – 682031.

¶11

OTHER PRESENT:

¶12

SRI.SANTHOSH PETER, SR PP

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.10.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

Bail Appl.No.5744 OF 2020

¶15

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

Dated this the 7th day of October 2020

¶18

This is a successive application for bail filed by

¶19

the applicant, who is the 1st accused in Crime No.426/2020 of Kondotty Police Station for having

¶20

allegedly committed the offences punishable under Sections 22(b) and (c) read with Section 29(1) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short “the Act”).

¶21

The earlier application filed by the applicant for bail as B.A.No.5271/2020 was dismissed by this Court considering the implication of Section 37 of the Act since the quantity involved is commercial and also directed the trial court to endeavour disposal of the matter as expeditiously as possible. However, the applicant tested positive for COVID-19, and therefore, he prays that he may be released on bail.

¶22

Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant

¶23

and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶24

Bail Appl.No.5744 OF 2020

¶25

¶26

The successive application for bail can be filed, but it can be considered favourably only in a case where there is a specific change of circumstances.

¶27

It is already held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that the embargo under Section 37 of the Act would continue

¶28

throughout the trial, and therefore, in between, the applicant cannot be given leniency for being granted bail by this Court.

¶29

The applicant is therefore directed to face the trial and the Designated Court is directed to dispose of the matter, as expeditiously as possible, and in case it is not possible to dispose of the matter expeditiously within the constraints of work and the pandemic situation, the Court below is at liberty to consider the application for regular bail again filed by the applicant. With these observations, the Bail Application is disposed of.

¶30

Sd/-

¶31

ASHOK MENON

¶32

dkr

Hijas v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hijas 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

M/S. Kairali Aviation Pvt. Ltd., Vs M/S. Cochin International Airport Ltd.

Vipin Kuttappan Vs State of Kerala

Princy John Vs State of Kerala

Asha Murali Vs State of Kerala

Ajmal Khan, Vs State of Kerala

Baiju Sukumaran @ Musthafa Vs State of Kerala