Dismissed

Antony V.F v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC9 Aug 2021Bail Appl./3982/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam dismissed the bail application of Antony V.F., the first accused in a drug trafficking case. The court held that the seizure of commercial quantity of hashish oil made it an unfit case for bail, noting the embargo under Section 37 of the NDPS Act and the petitioner's lack of evidence of innocence.

What did the court decide?

Bail application dismissed; petitioner remains in judicial custody.

Antony V.F 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

MONDAY, THE 9^TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 18TH SRAVANA, 1943 BAIL APPL. NO. 3982 OF 2021 CRIME NO.21/2021 OF Ernakulam E.E & A.N.S.S., Ernakulam PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1:

¶5

ANTONY V.F AGED 35 YEARS VALIYAVEETTIL HOUSE, PATHIRAPALLY, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688521

¶6

BY ADVS. T.K.RAJESHKUMAR APARNA SOMARAJAN

¶7

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶8

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY CIRCLE INSPECTOR, EXCISE ENFORCEMENT AND ANTINARCOTICS SPECIAL SQUAD ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031

¶9

BY ADV.SMT.SREEJA V., SR.SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶10

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

¶11

09.08.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶12

BAIL APPL.NO.3982 OF 2021

¶13

-2-

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

Petitioner, who is the first accused in

¶16

Crime No.21/2021 of Excise Enforcement and AntiNarcotics Special Squad, Ernakulam has moved this application under Section 439 Cr.P.C seeking regular bail.

¶17

He was arrested for the case which was registered alleging offence under Sections 20(b) (ii)C and 25 of the NDPS Act on 25.03.2021 and since then is in judicial custody. The

¶18

allegation is that, 15.050 kg of ganja and 5.72 kg of hashish oil were seized from the

¶19

possession of the petitioner.

¶20

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has been falsely implicated in the case. Referring to the seizure mahazar, he says that the provisions under Section 50 of the

¶21

NDPS Act has not been complied at all. The contention of the prosecution is that the

¶22

BAIL APPL.NO.3982 OF 2021

¶23

information about the unlawful possession of the

¶24

items was reported to Assistant Commissioner,

¶25

one Sasikumar, who himself had granted permission to search and seize the items. Later, he himself witnessed the seizure as a Gazetted Officer; all are in violation of the procedural mandates.

¶26

According to the learned counsel, he is

¶27

neither the owner nor the tenant of the

¶28

building. The building was taken on rent by one Athul Krishna, who has not been implicated as an

¶29

accused. The seizure mahazar also indicates that no sampling was done at all. He is in custody

¶30

for the last 140 days and nothing has been

¶31

recovered from his body also, that he has no criminal antecedents.

¶32

strongly opposed the application. According to

¶33

her, the said Athul Krishna has already been

¶34

implicated as the second accused and he could

¶35

BAIL APPL.NO.3982 OF 2021

¶36

-4-

¶37

not be arrested. He is the tenant of the building. The petitioner had been the occupier of the upstair portion of the building; in response to the publication made by Athul Krishna through OLX he came in occupation; substantial quantity of the contraband was seized from his bed room on the upstair building; the ground floor was being occupied by said Atul Krishna; 5.72 Kgs of hashish oil were seized from the bed room of the petitioner. Similarly, a portion of ganja was seized from the car and scooter owned by the petitioner.

¶38

After having gone through the sequence of events and also the alleged role of the petitioner, I do not think that this is a fit case for granting bail to the petitioner. Commercial quantity of hashish oil has been seized from the possession of the petitioner. The learned Public Prosecutor has strongly opposed the application. At least for the

¶39

BAIL APPL.NO.3982 OF 2021

¶40

present, there is no reason to think that he is not guilty of the offence. That means, the embargo under Section 37 of the NDPS Act very much works against the petitioner.

¶41

The application is devoid of merit and is

dismissed.

Sd/-

K.HARIPAL

JUDGE

nkr/09.08.2021

Antony V.F v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Antony V.F 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

Mohammed Irshad Vs State of Kerala

Shibil N.V. Vs the State of Kerala

Najeeb Vs the State of Kerala

Jojo Vs State of Kerala

Shijas E.M. Vs State of Kerala

Romal Antony Roshan Vs State of Kerala