Disposed

Jobi Jose v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC1 Dec 2020Bail Appl./6818/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Section 438 CrPC involving an alleged NDPS offence, the court found sufficient material to prove complicity. Contention about confession reliability was left for trial. The application was disposed of with a direction to surrender within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to surrender before the investigating officer within two weeks; liberty to apply for regular bail after arrest.

Jobi Jose 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

TUESDAY, THE 01ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2020 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA, 1942

¶5

Bail Appl..No.6818 OF 2020

¶6

CRIME NO.1511/2020 OF Aryancode Police Station , Thiruvananthapuram

¶7

PETITIONER/S:

¶8

JOBI JOSE AGED 30 YEARS JOBY BHAVAN NELLIKKAPARAMBU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695125

¶9

BY ADVS. SMT.KHADEEJA RISHBATH KALLINGAL SHRI.ASHISH GOPAL K G SMT.SREEJA K.S. SMT.ANJU J.V.

¶10

RESPONDENT/S:

¶11

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA 682031

¶12

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶13

OTHER PRESENT:

¶14

SRI.AJITH MURALI -PP

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.12.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

Bail Appl..No.6818 OF 2020 2

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

Dated this the 1st day of December 2020

¶19

Application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.

¶20

The applicant is the accused in Crime No.1511/2020 of

¶21

Aryancode Police Station for having allegedly committed offences punishable under Section 27 (b) (ii) B of the NDPS Act.

¶22

The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 02.10.2020 accused Nos.1 and 2 who were allegedly apprehended with 8.230 kgs of ganja and on being questioned, they confessed that they have bought ganja

¶23

from the applicant. Thereafter, the applicant has been implicated as the 4th accused.

¶24

The applicant states that he has got nothing to do with the rest of the accused. He has neither purchased nor sold any ganja as alleged by the other co-accused and therefore he seeks anticipatory bail.

¶25

Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶26

The learned Public Prosecutor submits that accused Nos.1 and 2 from whom, the ganja was allegedly recovered and are given a confession statement under Section 67 of the NDPS Act stating that

¶27

Bail Appl..No.6818 OF 2020 3

¶28

they had purchased ganja from the 4th accused, who had, in turn, brought it from Andra Pradesh. The applicant is also involved in another crime of similar nature and therefore the applicant may not be granted anticipatory bail.

¶29

After having heard the submissions made on both sides, I find that there is sufficient material to prove the complicity of the applicant. Whether the confession statement given by the co-accused can be relied upon or not is a matter of trial and it cannot be decided during the consideration of the application for bail. Hence the application is disposed of with a direction to the applicant to surrender before the investigating officer within two weeks. In the event of his being arrested, he shall be produced before the jurisdictional court, where he shall be at liberty to apply for a regular bail, which shall be considered and disposed of on the same day.

SD/-

ASHOK MENON

JUDGE

rmm

Jobi Jose v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jobi Jose 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

Muhammed Sulfi @ Sulfi Vs State of Kerala

Renjith Vs State of Kerala

Riyas Vs State of Kerala

Jaya Vs State of Kerala

Harikuttan Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Sharif Vs State of Kerala