Partly allowed

Omkary Venkidesh v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC7 Sept 2021Bail Appl./6259/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

HC directed the Sessions Court to dispose of an NDPS case within three months. The bail applications of two accused were dismissed due to the Section 37 embargo, while one female accused's bail was granted. The court noted the trial had not commenced despite previous directions.

What did the court decide?

Bail dismissed for two petitioners; allowed for accused No.4. Trial court directed to dispose of the case within three months.

Omkary Venkidesh Vs State of Kerala — Narcotics (NDPS) | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

B.A.No.6259 of 2021

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V.

¶6

TUESDAY, THE 7^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 16TH BHADRA, 1943

¶7

BAIL APPL. NO. 6259 OF 2021

¶8

(CRIME NO.193 OF 2019 OF THIRUNELLY POLICE STATION, WAYANAD)

¶9

PETITIONERS

¶10

1 OMKARY VENKIDESH AGED 25 YEARS SON OF CHINNANNA, 1-36 MAIN ROAD, MANDALAM KOTTAPPALLY ROYYALAPPALLY,EDULABANTHA, SHIRSHA P O, THELUNGANA, PIN - 504214 2 RAVULA RAJESH AGED 23 YEARS SON OF RAJALINGAM 2-26 MAIN ROAD, MANDALAM KONAPPALLY OYYALAPPALLY,ADHILABADH, SHIRSHA P O, THELUNGANA 3 SADANANDAM RAYARAKULAM AGED 50 YEARS SON OF SAMMAIH, H.NO.3Â1/1A, GATAKANIPARTHY VILLAGE, MANDAL, SHAYAMPET WARANGAL RURAL DISTRICT. TELUNGANA 4 TAMARBA SATHAYAVATHI AGED 31 YEARS D/O TALABU, SURIBABU, THADEPETTU VILLAGE, PEDAKODAPALLI, VISHAKHAPATTANAM, ANDRAPRADESH BY ADVS. K.R.PRATHISH A.J.ABHILASH

¶11

RESPONDENT/STATE AND COMPLAINANT:

¶12

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

¶13

B.A.No.6259 of 2021

¶14

¶15

2 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE THIRUNELLY POLICE STATION, THIRUNELLY P.O WAYANAD, PIN - 670646 BY ADVS. SHRI.P.NARAYANAN, ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR C.K.SURESH- SR.P.P

¶16

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

B.A.No.6259 of 2021

ORDER

This application is filed by the accused Nos.1,2,3 and 5 in Crime No.193 of 2019 of Thirunelly police station, Wayanad District registered for the offences punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act.

¶21

The prosecution allegation is that these petitioners along with the other accused who were natives of Thelungana were found in possession of 25 kg of Ganga and the same was seized while they were travelling in a KSRTC bus and thus the crime has been registered.

¶22

They are in custody since the date of the arrest.

¶23

This is the third application filed by these petitioners for release on bail. It is true that this Court has considered the bail application of accused No.4 on 4.8.2021 and granted bail subject to certain conditions. From a perusal of the order it could be seen that the bail application was considered mainly for the reason that she gave birth to a child while in custody. But the bail application filed by the accused Nos.1 and 2 was considered by this Court in B.A.No.2086 of 2020 and by an order dated 4.6.2020 it was dismissed on the finding that they are not entitled for bail because of the embargo under Sec.37 of the NDPS Act. So it is prima facie seen that there is a strong case against the petitioners 1 and 2.

¶24

B.A.No.6259 of 2021

¶25

¶26

While dismissing the bail application of accused Nos.1 and 2 this Court has observed as follows:

¶27

“It is submitted by the prosecution that the final report had already been filed, if that be so, the trial court shall make earnest endeavor to dispose of the case, as expeditiously as possible, considering the fact that the petitioners are in judicial custody. With these observations, the petition is dismissed.”

¶28

It is important to note that no substantial change has been

¶29

pointed out by the learned counsel to have a fresh look to the case. All these petitioners are from Thelungana and are not Keralites. Now the investigation of the case is over and it is pending for trial before the Additional Sessions Court as S.C.No.368 of 2019. Since the trial court was directed to dispose of the case at the earliest by this court in B.A.No.2086/2020 further direction to the court below may not be required. But it is pertinent to note that though this Court on 4.6.2020 has directed the trial court to dispose of the case at the earliest, it appears that the trial is yet to be commenced. So the learned trial Judge is further directed to take up the case and dispose of the same at the earliest within a period of three months from today. If no presiding officer is there in Additional Sessions Court -II, Kalpetta, the learned Principal Sessions Judge shall withdraw the case with notice to both sides and

¶30

B.A.No.6259 of 2021

¶31

¶32

proceed with trial and dispose of the same on or before the closing of the courts for Christmas holidays, just considering the fact that the petitioners are in judicial custody since 21.06.2019.

¶33

The bail application is disposed of accordingly.

Sd/-

SHIRCY V.

JUDGE

smm

Omkary Venkidesh v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Omkary Venkidesh 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

Sojan Vs State of Kerala

Antony Paul Vs State of Kerala

Anilkumar Vs the State of Kerala

Abhijit S. Nair Vs State of Kerala

Fayis Pullattil, Vs State of Kerala

Vishnuraj C.R. Vs State of Kerala