Dismissed

Muhammad Althaf v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC15 Jul 2021Bail Appl./1887/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A bail applicant accused of possessing a commercial quantity of MDMA argued for release as a juvenile unaware of the parcel contents. The court held that the investigation continues under Section 36A(4) and the embargo under Section 37 precludes bail, dismissing the application.

What did the court decide?

Bail application dismissed; embargo under Section 37 NDPS Act remains in force.

Muhammad Althaf Vs State of Kerala — Narcotics (NDPS) | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARIPAL

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 15^TH DAY OF JULY 2021 / 24TH ASHADHA, 1943

¶5

BAIL APPL. NO. 1887 OF 2021

¶6

CRIME NO.1/2021 OF EXCISE RANGE OFFICE, KOTTAYAM.

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

MUHAMMAD ALTHAF AGED 21 YEARS SALIM MANZIL, MALOORKAVU BHAGAM, I.E. NAGAR P.O., CHETHIPUZHA VILLAGE, CHANGANASSERY TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT - 686106 KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686106 BY ADV K.SHAJ

¶9

RESPONDENT:

¶10

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 2 EXCISE INSPECTOR, KOTTAYAM EXCISE RANGE, KOTTAYAM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT., PIN - 686001

¶11

BY ADV PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. SANTHOSH PETER

¶12

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

B.A.No.1887 of 2021

ORDER

The petitioner is the 1^st accused in Crime No.1/2021 of

¶17

Kottayam Excise Range, which was registered alleging offence under Section 22(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. It is alleged that the petitioner was found in possession of 20.200 gms of MDMA, which is a commercial quantity. He was arrested along with the contraband on 11.01.2021 and is continuing in custody.

¶18

The learned counsel for the petitioner sought for release of the petitioner. According to him, petitioner is only 21 years old, he happened to be involved in the crime when he had gone there for recieving a parcel sent by courier, which was addressed to the 2^nd accused. He had gone without knowing or understanding the contents of the parcel. He also submits that investigation is almost complete.

¶19

The submission has been disputed by the Public Prosecutor, according to him on 09.07.2021 an order has been passed by the special court extending the period of investigation under Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act. That means the investigation is still going on. Considering the allegation that the petitioner had allegedly

¶20

B.A.No.1887 of 2021

¶21

¶22

possessed so much quantity of narcotic drugs, the embargo under

¶23

Section 37 of the NDPS Act works against the petitioner. He cannot be

¶24

released on bail at this stage, the application is liable to be dismissed.

¶25

Bail application is dismissed.

Sd/-

K.HARIPAL JUDGE

Jms/15.07

//True Copy// P.A to Judge

Muhammad Althaf v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muhammad Althaf 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

Binu Vs State of Kerala

Sudheesh C.N Vs State of Kerala

Jouhar C.K.V Vs State of Kerala

Sonu P Vs State of Kerala

A. Balasubramanian Vs State of Kerala

Jaison @ Jobish P.Joy Vs State of Kerala