Dismissed

Anas V.K v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC14 Feb 2022Bail Appl./713/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court dismissed a fourth bail application by the accused driver charged under the NDPS Act for transporting 25.5 kg of ganja. Despite claims of disability and discrepancies in arrest timelines, the court upheld the statutory embargo under Section 37 of the NDPS Act and emphasized adverse inference from fleeing the scene.

What did the court decide?

Bail application dismissed; proceedings on Section 227 Cr.P.C. discharge application directed.

Anas V.K Vs State of Kerala — Narcotics (NDPS) | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARIPAL

¶4

MONDAY, THE 14^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 25TH MAGHA, 1943

¶5

BAIL APPL. NO. 713 OF 2022

¶6

CRIME NO. 695/2020 OF KONDOTTY POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM S.C. NO. 908/2021, SPECIAL COURT (ATROCITIES AGAINST SC/ST), MANJERI PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶7

ANAS V.K AGED 28 YEARS S/O. ASHRAF, VELLOORKAVIL HOUSE, THODUKAPPU, NATTUKALLU, KONDOTTI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADV M.P.SUNITHA BEEGUM

¶9

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶10

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

¶11

BY SRI. VIPIN NARAYANAN, SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶12

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.02.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

B.A.No. 713 of 2022

O R D E R

This is an application filed under Section 439 of the

¶17

Code of Criminal Procedure moved by the first accused in Crime No. 695/2020 of Kondotty police station which was registered on 17.10.2020 alleging offence under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C) and 29(1) of the NDPS Act. The prosecution allegation is that, that day at 8.10. P.M., the Sub Inspector, Kondotty police station and party on getting discreet information about illegal transport of narcotic drugs waited on the Kozhikode – Palakkad Highway and at a place Kodangad, found a Maruti Ritz car KL-71-A-4786 moving that way. When the vehicle was signalled to be stopped, it stopped about 10 meters away and the driver got down and ran away from the seat. The vehicle along with the person who was sitting on the navigation seat was intercepted and on examination, the person sitting on the navigation seat was found carrying a gunny bag; following the procedural formalities when the contents of the bag were searched,

¶18

B.A.No. 713 of 2022

¶19

¶20

it was found containing 25.5 kgms of ganja; thus the crime was registered, the said person was arrested, the vehicle and the contraband were seized and the case was registered against the person who ran away from the place as well as the person arrested. After investigation, the charge was filed against the petitioner, who was the driver of the car as the first accused and the other person as the second accused. During the course of investigation, the other person was released granting statutory bail. The petitioner surrendered before court on 17.06.2021 and since then is in judicial custody. Immediately after his surrender, the charge sheet was laid and he is in custody ever since. This is the fourth application for bail moved by him.

¶21

I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶22

According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, he is in custody for more than eight months. There are innumerable discrepancies in the case of the prosecution. Even though it is stated

¶23

B.A.No. 713 of 2022

¶24

¶25

that the crime was detected at 08.10 P.M. On 17.10.2020, if the examination of records and tower location of mobile phones of the officials are verified, it would come out that the vehicle and the second accused were in the custody of the police from 02.00 P.M. onwards. It has to be examined in detail as to what had happened between 02.00 P.M. and 08.30 P.M. that day. As the alleged material objects were seized from the other man, he should have been made the first accused instead the petitioner is made the prime accused. There is absolutely no material to find a prima facie case against the petitioner. He is a physically handicapped person having 58% disability, he is suffering from mental depression and under treatment, he is a person contracted interfaith marriage and has a girl child, because of the said marriage they have estranged both the families and he is unable to take care of the family. An application filed under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. stands dismissed with no reason and the trial of the case is not likely to take place in near future. Therefore, he seeks the indulgence of this Court for granting

B.A.No. 713 of 2022

him bail.

The application has been strongly opposed by the Senior Public Prosecutor Sri. Vipin Narayanan.

¶30

According to him, all these contentions have been considered by this Court on last three occasions, the petitioner was surrendering before court on 17.06.2021. There are strong materials against him. The embargo under Section 37 of the NDPS Act also is against him. Therefore, he cannot be released on bail at this stage.

¶31

As noticed earlier, this is the fourth application moved in succession and the third application was dismissed by this Court on 15.09.2021. This is a serious case in which 25.5 kgs of ganja was seized from the accused persons. It is true that the petitioner was not arrested from the spot. When the police party had intercepted the vehicle, seeing the police party, after stopping the vehicle at a distance of 10 metres, the petitioner as the driver was running away from the place and later, the police was after him and he could not be arrested. On 17.06.2021, he was surrendering before court. There

¶32

B.A.No. 713 of 2022

¶33

¶34

are strong materials against him. 25.5 kgms of ganja was seized

¶35

from the possession of the second accused who was travelling along

¶36

with the petitioner. The petitioner was the driver of the car. The seizure of so much quantity of contraband itself is sufficient to proceed against the accused persons.

¶37

The other person was released on bail granting statutory

¶38

bail as charge sheet could not be laid within the period of 180 days. The petitioner had surrendered before court immediately before laying the charge sheet.

¶39

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the car belongs to a friend of the petitioner, at the time of apprehending the car, it contained an amount of Rs.1,20,000/-, but the police records are silent about it, they have recorded only an amount of Rs.8,800/- which itself falsify the case of the prosecution. Moreover, the petitioner has materials to say that the car along with the second accused was apprehended at 02.00 P.M. on 17.10.2020 and between 02.00 P.M. and 8.30 P.M., the members of the

¶40

B.A.No. 713 of 2022

¶41

¶42

DANSAF officials, Sub Inspector Abdul Azees of Kondotty police station, ASI Sasi Kundrakkadan, District Police Headquarters, verification of their mobile phone records would indicate that they were with the second accused between 02.00 P.M. and 08.30. P.M. But the police is not furnishing the records. The petitioner has already moved for furnishing those records, but that application stands dismissed.

¶43

The materials collected by the prosecution are against the

¶44

petitioner and his co-accused. It cannot be believed that a false case was foisted on them after planting commercial quantity of ganja, for no reasons. The motive for registering such a case cannot be inferred from the version of the petitioner.

¶45

It is also inferable from the records that seeing the police party the petitioner was vanishing from the scene after stopping the vehicle. That itself is a matter of adverse inference. Later he was surrendering himself. The fact that 25.5 kgms of ganja was seized from the possession and power of the accused persons itself is

¶46

B.A.No. 713 of 2022

¶47

¶48

sufficient to draw adverse inferences and the embargo under Section

¶49

37 of the NDPS Act is against the petitioner. The contentions that he is physically handicapped, he cannot drive the vehicle etc., cannot be accepted at this stage. On his own showing, he is possessing a driving licence. Moreover, the contention that he has contracted interfaith marriage etc., also are not valid reasons to ignore the statutory embargo under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The application is devoid of merits and is only to be dismissed. Dismissed

¶50

It is shown that the petitioner has moved an application under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. seeking discharge. The learned Sessions Judge is directed to consider and dispose of the same, at the earliest.

SD/-

K.HARIPAL

JUDGE

DCS/12.02.2022

Anas V.K v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anas V.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 Faizal Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Hussain, Vs State of Kerala

Sabesan Vs State of Kerala

Aby Baby Varghese Vs the State of Kerala

Moyin@Vappu Vs the State of Kerala

Sheela Jerald Vs the State of Kerala