Allowed

Shoukkath v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC1 Mar 2021Bail Appl./401/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala granted bail to two applicants accused of possessing small quantities of ganja under the NDPS Act. The court held that rigours of Section 37 did not apply as charges were limited to small quantity possession without evidence of conspiracy.

What did the court decide?

Directions to release the applicants on bail on execution of bond for Rs. 1,00,000 each with two solvent sureties.

Shoukkath 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 ASHOK MENON

¶4

MONDAY, THE 01ST DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 10TH PHALGUNA, 1942

¶5

Bail Appl..No.9387 OF 2020

¶6

CRIME NO.597/2020 OF VAGAMON POLICE STATION , Idukki

¶7

PETITIONER/A9:

¶8

BRISTY BISWAS, AGED 23 YEARS AKASH BAVAN, THEKKUMBHAGAM, THRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM 682301 BY ADVS. SMT.KHADEEJA RISHBATH KALLINGAL SHRI.ASHISH GOPAL K G SMT.SREEJA K.S. SMT.ANJU J.V. SHRI.PETER JIBIN I.G.

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, 682031. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR BY DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION

¶11

OTHER PRESENT:

¶12

SRI.S.SAJJUU-SR PP

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14.01.2021, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..401/2021, THE COURT ON 01.03.2021 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

B.A.Nos.9387/2020 & 401/2021

¶15

-2-

¶16

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶17

PRESENT

¶18

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON

¶19

MONDAY, THE 01ST DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 10TH PHALGUNA, 1942

¶20

Bail Appl..No.401 OF 2021

¶21

CRIME NO.597/2020 OF VAGAMON POLICE STATION , Idukki

¶22

PETITIONER/A6:

¶23

SHOUKKATH, AGED 36 YEARS

¶24

S.O. HAMZA, KNH HOUSE,

¶25

KODUMBUZHA, NEAR FAROOK COLLEGE,

¶26

RAMANATTUKKARA 673633

¶27

BY ADVS.P.VIJAYABHANU (SR.)

¶28

SRI.S.RAJEEV

¶29

SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN

¶30

SRI.V.VINAY

¶31

SRI.K.ANAND (A-1921)

¶32

SRI.MANU TOM

¶33

RESPONDENT/S:

¶34

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

¶35

R1 BY S.SAJJUU-SR PP

¶36

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14.01.2021, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..9387/2020, THE COURT ON 01.03.2021 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶37

B.A.Nos.9387/2020 & 401/2021

¶38

-3-

¶39

COMMON ORDER

¶40

[ Bail Appl..9387/2020, Bail Appl..401/2021 ] Dated this the 1st day of March 2021

¶41

Applications for regular bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.

¶42

The applicant in B.A.No.9387/2020 is the 9th

¶43

accused while the applicant in B.A.No.401/2021 is the 6th accused in Crime No.597/2020 of Vagamon Police

¶44

Station, Idukki. The offences alleged against the applicants and the other co-accused in the aforesaid crime are punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(A), 22(a), 22(b), 22(c), 27 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and

¶45

Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

¶46

The prosecution case, in brief, is thus: On

¶47

getting information about a D.J.party being organised in a resort named the Cliff Inn at Vagamon, the Inspector of

¶48

Police reached there on 20/12/2020 and conducted a search

¶49

B.A.Nos.9387/2020 & 401/2021

¶50

-4-

¶51

between 22:30 hours on that day and up to 5:00 hours on 21/12/2020. Various quantities of Ecstasy Pills, Ecstasy

¶52

Powder, hashish, L.S.D stamps, charas, MDMA and Ganja were seized from each of the accused. It is contended that the D.J. party was arranged by the accused for the consumption, sale and distribution of the aforementioned narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, and information was passed to all by means of a WhatsApp group named and styled as 'AADRAADRA'. It is alleged

¶53

that it was the result of a conspiracy hatched by all the participants.

¶54

Accused 6 to 8 were staying in a room from where 7.8 grams of dry Ganja was seized from the belongings of 6^th accused. On conducting search of 9^th accused with the help of women CPOs and the women Gazetted Officer, 6.45 grams of dry Ganja and the packet of herb rolling paper was seized from the personal possession. The applicants were arrested on the aforesaid date and remanded to judicial custody. The seizures included small quantity,

¶55

B.A.Nos.9387/2020 & 401/2021

¶56

-5-

¶57

intermediary quantity and commercial quantity of narcotics.

¶58

The applicants state that they are innocent and

¶59

that only small quantity of dry Ganja was seized from their possession, and therefore, they may be released on bail. The Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch, Idukki has filed objections stating that the accused are part of a larger network and that the narcotics were brought from Bangalore and distributed among the members of the group. Since they are part of the conspiracy, each one of them liable for the entire quantity of drugs seized. The bail application is opposed with vehemence.

¶60

P.Vijayabhanu appearing for 6^th accused instructed by Advocate Sri S.Rajeev. Advocate Smt.Khadeeja Rishbath Kallingal appeared for 9^th accused. The learned Prosecutor was heard on behalf of the State. Records perused.

¶61

submits that 6^th accused had gone to the resort with his

¶62

B.A.Nos.9387/2020 & 401/2021

¶63

-6-

¶64

friends, accused 7 and 8, to celebrate his birthday. He has no connection with the WhatsApp group and has nothing to do with the D.J.party. Smt.Khadeeja submits that 9^th accused is an Engineering student, and she too has no connections with the WhatsApp group or the D.J. party. It is submitted that the applicants have no

¶65

criminal antecedents and that the Ganja seized from them is only a small quantity. Hence they are entitled to be released on bail.

¶66

After having heard the submissions and gone through the objections filed by the prosecution, I find that there is no substantial evidence collected against the applicants to indicate that they are members of the group which had hatched a conspiracy to use, sell and distribute narcotic drugs or any psychotropic substance.

¶67

The accused were also not found together, and there is no indication of any communication among them. The applicants have no criminal antecedents. The rigour under Section 37 of the NDPS Act may not be attracted as

¶68

B.A.Nos.9387/2020 & 401/2021

¶69

-7-

¶70

against the applicants, as they were only in possession of small quantity of Ganja. The F.I.R indicates inclusion of offences for possession of small, intermediary and commercial quantities of psychotropic substances. For the possession of Ganja, there is only the inclusion of Section 20(b)(ii)(A) and that is what is found applicable to the applicants. Section 37(1)(b) prescribes restrictions on granting bail only in cases of offences under Sections 19, 24 and 27A and for offences involving commercial quantity. The applicants have only committed an offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(A) for possession of small quantity of Ganja. It is true that Section 29 is incorporated, but there are no materials available at present to indicate that the applicants were part of the conspiracy. Under the circumstances, there is no embargo in granting bail to the applicants. The applications are to be allowed.

¶71

In the result, both the applications are allowed and the applicants are directed to be released on bail on execution of bond for 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh₹ only)

¶72

B.A.Nos.9387/2020 & 401/2021

¶73

-8-

¶74

each, with two solvent sureties for like amount each to

¶75

the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court, and on following further conditions:

¶76

officer as and when called for and cooperate with the investigation;

¶77

ii) They shall not get involved in any crime of

¶78

similar nature during the bail period;

¶79

iii) They shall not tamper with evidence, influence or intimidate witnesses.

¶80

In the event of breach of the above conditions, the

¶81

prosecution shall be at liberty to approach the

¶82

jurisdictional Court for cancellation of the bail.

Sd/-

ASHOK MENON

JUDGE

dkr

Shoukkath v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shoukkath 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

Aboobacker Vs State of Kerala

Sakir P Vs State of Kerala

Vishnu Radhakrishnan Vs State of Kerala

Varghese Vs State of Kerala

Subaidha Vs State of Kerala

Shijil T a Vs State of Kerala