Dismissed

Aryan.P. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC7 Mar 2023Bail Appl./108/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a regular bail application under the NDPS Act. The petitioner, a second accused, was charged with involvement in transporting MDMA. The court denied bail due to the large quantity of contraband and invoked the rigour of Section 37. However, the court directed the trial court to complete the trial within six months of receiving the FSL report.

What did the court decide?

Bail application dismissed. Trial to be completed within six months of receipt of FSL report.

Aryan.P. 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 VIJU ABRAHAM

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 16TH PHALGUNA, 1944
BAIL APPL. NO. 108 OF 2023

¶5

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENTBail Appl. 9834/2022 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

ARYAN.P.
AGED 23 YEARS
S/0 PRASANNAN, JALAJA VILASAM, MELOOD P.O,
PERINGANAD, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT., PIN - 691523
BY ADVS.
AJITH MURALI
MOHANAN M.K.

¶8

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶9

STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT
OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM., PIN - 682031
PP: RIYAL DEVASSY

¶10

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 07.03.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

¶11

Bail Appln. No. 108 of 2023 2

¶12

VIJU ABRAHAM , J.

¶13

===========================

¶14

Bail Appln. No. 108 of 2023

¶15

============================ Dated this the 7^th day of March, 2023

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

This is an application for regular bail.

¶18

The petitioner is the 2^nd accused in Crime No.864/2022 of Pandalam Police Station, Pathanamthitta alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 20 (c), 60, 8 and Section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

¶19

The prosecution allegation is that, on 30.07.2022 at 3.55 pm, the Police Inspector, Pandalam Police Station and his party seized 4.480 gms of MDMA from the possession of the 1^st accused and 151.490 gms of MDMA from the possession of the 4th accused, and thereby a total quantity of 155.970 grams was seized when they were sitting in the Room No.106 of River Walk Hotel, Pandalam. It is also alleged that during the search, the police seized electronic weighing machine, plastic covers and also recovered two cars and one scooter parked nearby the hotel. Allegation raised against the petitioner herein is that he was also present in the hotel room while the police officials seized the contraband articles from accused Nos.1 and 4 and thereby committed the aforesaid offences.

¶20

Bail Appln. No. 108 of 2023 3

¶21

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is falsely implicated in the above said crime and the petitioner is arrested on 31.07.2022 and he is in custody since then. It is further submitted that no contraband was seized from his possession and even going by the prosecution, the contraband articles were recovered from the possession of accused Nos.1 and 4 and the petitioner has no other criminal antecedents also. It is further submitted that the continued detention of the petitioner is not required for the purpose of the investigation, in as much as investigation is over and final report has been filed.

¶22

Learned Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the application for bail mainly contending that the petitioner was also present in the hotel when the contraband was seized. Even though it is true that the contraband was seized from the possession of the 1^st and 4^th accused, the investigation revealed that petitioner had an active role in commission of the alleged offence. Going by the prosecution case, the petitioner along with accused Nos. 1, 4 and 5 had conspired on 28.07.2022 to transport MDMA and in a Maruthi Alto car which was taken on rent by the 4^th respondent from one Anandu, who is friend of the petitioner herein transported 151.490 grams of MDMA. It is alleged that accused Nos. 1 and 2 has sent amounts through UPI transaction as well as CDM for purchase of the alleged contraband. The zip

¶23

Bail Appln. No. 108 of 2023 4

¶24

covers for packing MDMA was also seized from possession of the petitioner. It is also submitted that on verification of the account details of the petitioner, it is seen that monetory transactions were done to the account of accused Nos. 1, 5 and 7 and large amounts have been transferred by the petitioner. The investigation also revealed that there was constant contact by the petitioner with the 1^st accused. The tower location also revealed that on 30.07.2022 the petitioner has reached the river walk hotel at Pandalam from where the alleged contraband was seized and the petitioner was arrested. The learned Public Prosecutor further submits that the bail application of the petitioner was considered by this Court earlier and has been rejected as per Annexure B order.

¶25

Considering the large quantity of contraband involved and the specific role of the petitioner in commission of the offence, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner specifically taking note of the rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. A report has been called from the trial Court concerned regarding the present stage of the case and it was reported that the FSL report is not yet received and that on receipt of the same, the trial could be concluded within a period of six months.

¶26

Therefore, I am inclined to dispose of the bail application with a direction to the trial Court to take up and complete the trial

¶27

Bail Appln. No. 108 of 2023 5

¶28

of the case in S.C. No. 963/2022 at the earliest at any rate within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the FSL report. It is made clear that, if the trial of the case is unduly delayed, the petitioner is free to move this Court or the trial Court concerned seeking bail.

¶29

With the above said direction the bail application is dismissed.

¶30

Sd/VIJU ABRAHAM JUDGE

¶31

sbk/-

Aryan.P. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aryan.P. 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

Biju. O.V Vs Nalleppilly Grama Panchayat

Vipin C.P Vs Nalleppilly Grama Panchayat

Aloscious Decrus @ Aloshy Vs State of Kerala

Suprakasan Kolath, Vs State of Kerala

Saji Chacko Vs Registrar of Births and Deaths

Vadekkevila Sasi Vs Cochin University of Science & Technology