Allowed

Ranjith v. the Assistant Excise Commissioner

Kerala HC3 Feb 2022Bail Appl./272/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Kerala High Court allowed regular bail for a petitioner accused of drug offenses under NDPS Act. The petitioner, detained for 107 days after filing of final report, sought release as seized substances were later identified as non-commercial quantities of Methamphetamine. Court granted bail with strict conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail with substantial sureties and strict conditions including weekly reporting and no commission of new offenses.

Ranjith Vs the Assistant Excise Commissioner — Narcotics (NDPS) | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 3^RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 14TH MAGHA, 1943

¶5

BAIL APPL. NO. 272 OF 2022

¶6

CRIME NO.34/2021 OF EXCISE RANGE OFFICE, THALIPARAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

RANJITH AGED 24 YEARS S/O.RAJU, GRACE LINE, ATHIRAKAM, MUNDAYAD P.O., VARAM, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS. T.G.RAJENDRAN T.R.TARIN V.A.VINOD

¶10

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT & STATE:

¶11

1 THE ASSISTANT EXCISE COMMISSIONER KANNUR - 670 003.

¶12

2 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.

¶13

OTHER PRESENT:

¶14

ADV ASHI-PP

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.02.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

..2..

BA No.272/2022

ORDER

This is an application for regular bail.

¶20

The petitioner is the accused in Crime No. 34 of 2021 of Excise Range Office, Thaliparamba, Kannur District, alleging commission of offences under Sections 22(C), 20(b)(ii)(A) & 25 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.

¶21

The allegation against the petitioner was that 13.250 kg of a substance believed to be MDMA and 5.960 gm of hashish oil were recovered from the possession of the petitioner and thereby, he committed the offences under the aforesaid provisions of law.

¶22

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after chemical analysis, the substance believed to be MDMA has been shown to be Methamphetamine, in which event, the drugs seized from the petitioner are not in commercial quantities. It is pointed out that the petitioner is entitled to statutory bail on completion of 90 days in custody as the final report in the matter was filed only on 18.01.2022. It is further submitted that the petitioner has completed 107 days in custody and his continued detention may not be necessary for the purpose of investigation as the final report has already been filed in the matter.

¶23

BA No.272/2022

¶24

..3..

¶25

I have heard the learned Public Prosecutor also. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, would submit that the substance believed to be MDMA is shown to be Methamphetamine, in which event, the drugs seized from the petitioner are not in commercial quantities. However, it is submitted that the petitioner cannot now claim that he is entitled to statutory bail as final report has already been filed in the matter. It is further submitted that if the petitioner is released on bail, there is every chance of repeating similar offences in future.

¶26

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor, I am of the view that the petitioner can be released on bail subject to strict conditions to ensure that he does not repeat any offence in future, since he has already been in custody for 107 days.

¶27

In the result, the bail application is allowed and it is directed that the petitioner shall be released on bail subject to the following conditions:

¶28

(a)The petitioner shall execute bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/(Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court;

¶29

BA No.272/2022

¶30

..4..

¶31

(b)Petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer in

¶32

Crime No. 34 of 2021 of Excise Range Office, Thaliparamba, Kannur District, every Saturday at 11.00 am till completion of trial in the Sessions Case relating to Crime No. 34 of 2021 of Excise Range Office, Thaliparamba, Kannur District;

¶33

(c) The petitioner shall not attempt to influence or intimidate any witness in Crime No. 34 of 2021 of Excise Range Office, Thaliparamba, Kannur District;

¶34

(d)The petitioner shall not involve in any other crime while on bail.

¶35

If any of the aforesaid conditions is violated, the investigating officer in Crime No. 34 of 2021 of Excise Range Office, Thaliparamba, Kannur District, may file an application before the jurisdictional court for cancellation of bail.

Sd/-

GOPINATH P.

JUDGE

bka/03.02.2022

Ranjith v. the Assistant Excise Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranjith v. the Assistant Excise Commissioner

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

Arun B. S. Vs the State of Kerala

Salam, Vs State of Kerala

Suhaid Vs State of Kerala

Gopalakrishnan Vs State of Kerala

Joshy Cheriyan Vs State of Kerala

Hamza Kallingal Vs State of Kerala