Dismissed

Alifkhan Abdul Ahad Safeena v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC15 Mar 2023Bail Appl./1043/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under CrPC Section 439 involving possession of commercial quantity of narcotics under the NDPS Act, the court held that the statutory twin conditions are not satisfied. The bail application was dismissed as the court could not be satisfied regarding the accused's innocence or likelihood of committing further offences.

What did the court decide?

Bail application dismissed; petitioner not released.

Alifkhan Abdul Ahad Safeena Vs State of Kerala — Narcotics (NDPS) | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 15^TH DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 24TH PHALGUNA, 1944

¶5

BAIL APPL. NO. 1043 OF 2023

¶6

CRIME NO.7/2023 OF DEVIKULAM EXCISE RANGE, IDUKKI

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

ALIFKHAN ABDUL AHAD SAFEENA AGED 25 YEARS, S/O ABDUL AHAD, R/O PATTATHU HOUSE, POREDOM P.O, CHADAYAMANGALAM, KOLLAM, PIN - 691534 BY ADVS. HARIKRISHNAN M.S. SHAKTHI PRAKASH

¶9

RESPONDENTS/STATE/COMPLAINANT:

¶10

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 2 THE EXCISE INSPECTOR EXCISE RANGE OFFICE, DEVIKULAM, IDUKKI, PIN - 685613

¶11

T V NEEMA - SRPP

¶12

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.03.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

B.A.No. 1043 of 2023

ORDER

Dated this the 15^th day of March, 2023

¶17

This is a petition filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking bail and the petitioner is the sole accused in crime No.7/2023 of Devikulam Excise Range, Idukki.

¶18

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the case diary along with detailed report submitted by the Investigating Officer.

¶19

In this matter, the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(A) and 22(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred as 'NDPS Act'). The allegation of the prosecution is that, at about 3.20 pm on 25.01.2023, the accused was found in possession of 7 gram of dry Ganja and 0.126 gram of LSD (7 stamps of LSD) near Velmudy Kara, Munnar, while the petitioner was transporting the same on a motor bike bearing registration No.KL-82-1280, against the prohibitions contained in the NDPS Act. Accordingly the accused was nabbed and the contraband was seized. Pursuant to the recovery and arrest, crime alleging commission of the above offences was registered and is on

B.A.No. 1043 of 2023

investigation.

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, the petitioner is innocent and the petitioner is a 25 year old person. Therefore, taking note of the custody of the petitioner from 25.01.2023 and the progress of investigation, he may be enlarged on bail.

¶24

While opposing grant of bail to the petitioner, the learned Public Prosecutor would submit that, red handed recovery of commercial quantity of contraband led to registration of this crime and the investigation is on the extreme primitive stage. Further, it is submitted that, in order to grant regular bail to the petitioner, who alleged to have possessed commercial quantity of contraband, twin conditions provided under Section 37 of the NDPS Act must be satisfied.

¶25

On perusal of the prosecution records, commercial quantity of contraband to the tune of 7 gram of dry Ganja and 0.126 gram of LSD (7 stamps of LSD) recovered red handedly from the petitioner and in such a case, this Court must satisfy the twin conditions stipulated under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, while granting bail to an accused, who alleged to have possessed commercial quantity of contraband. Therefore, the

¶26

B.A.No. 1043 of 2023

¶27

¶28

rigour under Section 37 of the NDPS Act would squarely apply in this case.

¶29

No doubt, when the prosecution alleges possession of commercial quantity of contraband, the rider under Section 37 of

¶30

the NDPS Act would apply. Section 37 of the NDPS Act provides as under:

¶31

37. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable.--

¶32

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974),--

¶33

(a) every offence punishable under this Act shall be cognizable;

¶34

(b) no person accused of an offence punishable for offences under section 19 or section 24 or section 27A and also for offences involving commercial quantity shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless--

¶35

(i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and

¶36

(ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.

¶37

(2) The limitations on granting of bail specified in clause

¶38

(b) of sub-section (1) are in addition to the limitations

¶39

B.A.No. 1043 of 2023

¶40

¶41

under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail.

¶42

On a perusal of Section 37(1)(a)(i), when the Public

¶43

Prosecutor opposes bail application of a person involved in a crime, where commercial quantity of the contraband was seized, the Court can grant bail only after satisfying two conditions: viz; (1) There are ‘reasonable grounds’ for believing that the accused is not guilty of such offences and (2) he will not commit any offence while on bail.

¶44

The Apex Court considered the meaning of ‘reasonable grounds’ in the decision reported in (2007) 7 SCC 798, Union of India v. Shiv Shankar Kesari and held that the expression ‘reasonable grounds’ means something more than prima facie grounds. It connotes substantial probable causes for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offence charged and this reasonable belief contemplated in turn points to existence of such facts and circumstances as are sufficient in themselves to justify recording of satisfaction that the accused is not guilty of the offence charged.

¶45

It was further held that the Court while considering the application for bail with reference to S.37 of the Act is not called

¶46

B.A.No. 1043 of 2023

¶47

¶48

upon to record a finding of not guilty. It is for the limited purpose essentially confined to the question of releasing the accused on bail that the Court is called upon to see if there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty and records its satisfaction about the existence of such grounds. But the Court has not to consider the matter as if it is pronouncing a judgment of acquittal and recording a finding of not guilty.

¶49

While considering the rider under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the same principles have been reiterated, in the decisions reported in Superintendent, Narcotics Central Bureau v. R.Paulsamy [2000 KHC 1549: AIR 2000 SC 3661: (2000) 9 SCC 549: 2001 SCC (Cri) 648: 2001 CrilLJ 117], Customs, New Delhi v. Ahmadalieva Nodira [2004 KHC 505: AIR 2004 SC 3022:2004(3) SCC 549: 2004 SCC (Cri) 834: 2004 (110) DLT 300: 2004 CriLJ 1810: 2004 (166) ELT 302], Union of India v. Abdulla [2004 KHC 1992: 2004(13) SCC 504: 2005 CriLJ 3115: 2005 All LJ 2334], N.R.Mon v. Md.Nasimuddin [2008 KHC 6547: 2008(6) SCC 721: 2008(2) KLD 316: 2008(2) KLT 1022: 2008(9) SCALE 334: AIR 2008 SC 2576:2008 CriLJ 3491: 2008(3) SCC (Cri) 29], Union of India v. Rattan Malik [2009 KHC 4151: 2009(2) SCC 624: 2009(2) KLT SN 83: 2009 (1)

¶50

B.A.No. 1043 of 2023

¶51

¶52

SCC (Cri) 831:2009 CriLJ 3042: 2009 (4) ALL LJ 627: 2009(2) SCALE 51], Union of India v. Niyazuddin [2017 KHC 4465: AIR 2017 SC 3932: 2018 (13) SCC 738], State of Kerala v. Rajesh [2020(1) KHC 557: AIR 2020 SC 721: 2020(1) KLJ 664: 2020(2) KLT SN1 : ILR 2020(1), Ker.848]. Latest decision on this point is one reported in [2023 Crl.L J 799], Union of India v. Jitendra Giri .

¶53

On a plain reading of Section 37(1) (b) and 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act, within the ambit of the Settled law, it has to be understood that two ingredients shall be read conjunctively and not disjunctively. Therefore satisfaction of both conditions are sine qua non for granting bail to an accused who alleged to have been committed the offences under Section 19 or Section 24 or Section 27A and also for the offences involving commercial quantity as provided under Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act. Unless Section 37 is not amended by the legislature in cases specifically referred under Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act, the Court could not grant bail without recording satisfaction of the above twin ingredients.

¶54

Thus, while granting bail to an accused, who alleged to have committed offences under the NDPS Act involving commercial quantity, where learned Public Prosecutor opposes

¶55

B.A.No. 1043 of 2023

¶56

¶57

grant of bail, this Court must satisfy that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offence and he will not likely to commit any offence while on bail.

¶58

Going by the prosecution allegations, this Court could not satisfy the above conditions in any manner. Therefore, the petitioner is not liable to be released on bail.

¶59

Accordingly, this bail application stands dismissed.

¶60

Sd/-

¶61

A. BADHARUDEEN JUDGE

¶62

Alifkhan Abdul Ahad Safeena v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Alifkhan Abdul Ahad Safeena 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shinumon a Vs State of Kerala

Baby Vs State of Kerala

Favas K.P Vs State of Kerala

Rivaj P.V Vs State of Kerala

Abins Vs State of Kerala

Ratheesh Kumar Vs State of Kerala