Allowed

Muhammed Musthafa v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC13 Jan 2020Crl.MC/214/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

KHC High Court exercised powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash order cancelling bail of Accused No.1 under NDPS Act for alleged violation of passport surrender condition. Court allowed filing fresh affidavit losing passport and imposed condition of not leaving State.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings under Annexure-B order quashed. Appellant to file fresh affidavit within one week that passport was lost and no duplicate applied; trial court to treat as sufficient compliance.

Muhammed Musthafa Vs the State of Kerala — Narcotics (NDPS) | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. NARAYANA PISHARADI

¶4

MONDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 23RD POUSHA, 1941

¶5

Crl.MC.No.214 OF 2020(F)

¶6

CRIME NO.33/2019 OF Malappuram E.E & A.N.S.S. , Malappuram

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1:

¶8

MUHAMMED MUSTHAFA AGED 43 YEARS S/O.MUHAMMED, MANNINGACHALIL HOUSE, POOKKOTUR, PULLARA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR

¶10

RESPONDENTS/STATE AND COMPLAINANT:

¶11

1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI, PIN- 682031.

¶12

2 THE EXCISE INSPECTOR, EXCISE ENFORCEMENT ANTI NARCOTIC SPECIAL SQUAD, MALAPPURAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676505.

¶13

SRI AJITH MURALI-PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.01.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

Crl.MC.No.214 OF 2020(F) 2

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C challenging Annexures-B and C orders passed by the Special Court for the trial of N.D.P.S Act Cases, Manjeri.

¶18

The petitioner is the first accused in the case registered as Crime No.33/2019 of the Excise Enforcement and Anti-Narcotic Special Squad, Malappuram under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

¶19

As per Annexure-A order dated 03.12.2019, this Court granted bail to the petitioner on certain conditions. One of the conditions was that he shall surrender his passport in the court below and if he has got no passport, he shall file an affidavit to that effect within five days from the date of his release on bail.

¶20

The petitioner was released on bail pursuant to Annexure-A order passed by this Court. Thereafter, he filed an affidavit in the court below stating that he had lost his passport during the year 2018 and that the period of the passport had been expired. The trial court did not accept this

¶21

Crl.MC.No.214 OF 2020(F) 3

¶22

affidavit. As per Annexure-B order dated 10.12.2019, the trial court found that the petitioner has violated the condition of bail imposed by this Court and he was directed to show cause why the bail bond executed by him shall not be cancelled.

¶23

On 16.12.2019, the petitioner appeared before the court below. Learned counsel for the petitioner filed an application in the court below seeking a period of 15 days to get the order of this Court modified. As per Annexure-C order, that application was allowed by the trial court and the case was posted to 01.01.2020.

¶24

This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C challenging Annexure-B order passed by the court below refusing to accept the affidavit filed by the petitioner and also

¶25

the further proceedings taken against him for cancellation of the bail bond.

¶26

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

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had lost his passport and therefore, he filed the affidavit to that effect, disclosing the whole truth. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner could have filed affidavit to

¶28

Crl.MC.No.214 OF 2020(F) 4

¶29

the effect that he had no passport. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is penalised for stating the truth before the court below.

¶30

Considering the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has lost his passport, I find that he can be directed to file a fresh affidavit before the court below stating that he had lost his passport and that he has not applied for getting any new or duplicate passport. An additional condition can also be imposed that the petitioner shall not leave the State without the prior permission of the trial court.

¶31

Consequently, the petition is disposed of as follows: The proceedings initiated against the petitioner by the court below as per Annexure-B order are quashed. The petitioner shall file a fresh affidavit in the court below within a period of one week from today that he is not in possession of his passport as it was lost and that he has not applied for obtaining any new or duplicate passport. If an affidavit is filed to the above effect, the trial court shall treat the same as sufficient compliance with the condition in that regard in Annexure-A order of this Court. The petitioner shall not leave

¶32

Crl.MC.No.214 OF 2020(F) 5 the State during the investigation of Crime No.33/2019 of the Excise Enforcement and Anti-Narcotic Special Squad, Malappuram and the subsequent trial of the case, if any, without the prior permission of the trial court. Such an additional condition is imposed on the petitioner as a condition of the bail granted to him. If the petitioner has already executed any bond before the trial court in compliance with Annexure-A order passed by this Court, he shall be allowed to be on bail on the basis of such bond.

¶33

Sd/-

¶34

R. NARAYANA PISHARADI JUDGE

¶35

LEK

¶36

Crl.MC.No.214 OF 2020(F) 6

¶37

APPENDIX

¶38

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶39

ANNEXURE A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN B.A.NO.8637/2019 DATED, 03.12.2019 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. ANNEXURE B CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE, NARCOTIC DRUGS PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES ACT CASES, MANJERI IN CRL.M.P.NO.1028/2019 DATED 10.12.2019 ANNEXURE C CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE, NARCOTIC DRUGS PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES ACT CASES, MANJERI IN CRL.M.P.NO.1028/2019 DATED, 16.12.2019.

Muhammed Musthafa v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muhammed Musthafa v. the 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

Ambili.R Vs Sree Gokulam Chit and Finance Company (P) Ltd.

Muralidharan Vs Cnn Kerala Chits (P) Ltd.

Manojan Vs State of Kerala

C.K.Moosa Vs Asst.Collector,Special Customs Preventiv

Vinod K.G Vs State of Kerala

Kizhakkayil Khadeeja Vs State of Kerala