Allowed

Shanib P.K v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC26 Aug 2022Bail Appl./3399/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed regular bail for a second accused in an NDPS case, ordering release on stringent conditions including weekly appearance before the investigating officer due to the intermediate quantity of drugs involved.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail subject to bond of Rs.50,000 with sureties, appearing weekly, and complying with specific behavioral conditions.

Shanib P.K Vs State of Kerala — Narcotics (NDPS) | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

BAIL APPL. NO. 3399 OF 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM
FRIDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 4TH BHADRA, 1944

¶6

BAIL APPL. NO. 3399 OF 2022

¶7

(Crime No.213/2022 of Vidayanagar Police Station)

¶8

PETITIONER ACCUSED NO.2

¶9

SHANIB P.K, AGED 28 YEARS
R/AT SHAKEEFA MANZIL,CHALAKUNNU,
KASARAGOD DISTRICT, PIN – 671123.

¶10

BY ADV P.S.ANISHAD

¶11

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶12

STATE OF KERALA

¶13

REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN – 682031.

¶14

OTHER PRESENT:

¶15

PP - SMT. NIMA JACOB

¶16

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
26.08.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

¶17

¶18

BAIL APPL. NO. 3399 OF 2022

¶19

VIJU ABRAHAM, J

¶20

Dated this the 26th day of August, 2022

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

This is an application for regular bail.

¶23

The petitioner is the second accused in Crime

¶24

No.213/2022 of Vidayanagar Police Station, alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 22(c) and 29(1) of the NDPS Act, 1985.

¶25

The prosecution allegation is that on 06.02.2022 at 17 hours, the first accused was found in possession of 10.39 grams of MDMA, a Narcotic drugs in his car bearing registration No.KL-14-P-2421 at a place called Nayyanmar Moola of Chengala village in violation of the NDPS Act. It is alleged that it was the petitioner/2nd accused who had given MDMA to the first accused and thereby the accused has committed the aforesaid offences.

¶26

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor,

¶27

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that

¶28

¶29

BAIL APPL. NO. 3399 OF 2022

¶30

the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the aforesaid offences. Even though in the bail application it has noted that the contraband involved was 110.39 grams of MDMA, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that some mistake has crept in while drafting the bail application and the quantity of the contraband is only 10.39 grams of MDMA and the same fact is endorsed by the learned Public Prosecutor also. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner was arrested on 28.03.2022 and is in custody since then and that he has no criminal antecedents.

¶31

When the matter came up for consideration on the last posting day the learned Public Prosecutor was directed to produce the chemical analysis report in respect of the contraband seized and based on the chemical analysis report, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the contraband involved is not MDMA but methamphetamine, and that going by the same, admittedly the contraband seized is only intermediate quantity as the commercial quantity of methamphetamine is 50 grams.

¶32

The learned Public Prosecutor upon instructions

¶33

¶34

BAIL APPL. NO. 3399 OF 2022

¶35

submitted that the contraband was seized from the possession of the first accused and the allegation against the petitioner is that he is involved in supply of narcotic drugs and further submitted that he is involved in other criminal cases.

¶36

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of the allegations and considering the fact that the petitioner is in custody from 28.03.2022 onwards, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner but on stringent conditions. In the result, the bail application is allowed. It is directed that the petitioner shall be released on bail, subject to the following conditions:

¶37

(i) The petitioner shall execute a bond for

¶38

a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand

¶39

only) with two solvent sureties each for the

¶40

like-sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court;

¶41

(ii) Petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer in Crime No.213/2022

¶42

of Vidayanagar Police Station, every Saturday at 11 am till filing of the final

¶43

¶44

BAIL APPL. NO. 3399 OF 2022

¶45

report;

¶46

(iii) The petitioner shall not attempt to interfere with the investigation or to influence or intimidate the defacto complainant or any witness in Crime No.213/2022 of Vidayanagar Police Station,

¶47

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

¶48

If any of the aforesaid conditions are violated, the investigating officer in Crime No.213/2022 of Vidayanagar

¶49

Police Station, may file an application before the jurisdictional court, for cancellation of bail.

¶50

VIJU ABRAHAM, JUDGE

¶51

R.AV

Shanib P.K v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shanib P.K 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

Muhammed Ashkar Vs State of Kerala

Minhajudeen Vs State of Kerala

Rajesh M.K. Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Manaf .P. v Vs State of Kerala

Sajiraj Vs State of Kerala

Pavoor Dillep Kumar Vs State of Kerala Rpresented by the Public Prosecutor