Allowed

Niranjan. B v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC8 Jun 2023Bail Appl./1531/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Section 439 CrPC, the court granted bail to the second accused charged with NDPS offences. The seized quantity of Methamphetamine was below commercial limits, and the accused's young age and detention period influenced the decision.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail upon executing bond of Rs.50,000 with two sureties and abiding conditions of not influencing witnesses or committing further offences.

Niranjan. B 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 BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
THURSDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 18TH JYAISHTA, 1945
BAIL APPL. NO. 1531 OF 2023

¶4

CRIME NO.65/2023 OF ERNAKULAM TOWN NORTH POLICE STATION
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENTFIR 65/2023 OF ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE , ERNAKULAM

¶5

CRMC 399/2023 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-II, ERNAKULAM
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2:

¶6

NIRANJAN. B
AGED 20 YEARS, S/O K K BALAN PILLAI
KOTTUPULAKKAL HOUSE, VADASSERIKKARA, NEAR VILLAGE
OFFICE, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689662
BY ADVS.
V.SETHUNATH
V.R.MANORANJAN (MUVATTUPUZHA)
SREEGANESH U.
OBEID ABDUL MAJEED

¶7

RESPONDENT/:

¶8

STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM

¶9

BY ADV PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶10

OTHER PRESENT:

¶11

PP SMT.NEEMA T.V

¶12

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
08.06.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

BAIL APPL. NO. 1531 OF 2023

¶14

¶15

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.

¶16

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

¶17

B.A. No. 1531 of 2023 ========================

¶18

Dated this the 8^th day of June, 2023

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

This is an application for regular bail filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

¶21

The petitioner is the 2^nd accused in Crime No.65/2023 of Ernakulam Town North Police Station, alleging commission of offences punishable under Section 22(c) and Section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

¶22

According to the prosecution on 11-01-2023, the Detecting Officer, on getting information, searched room No.105 at a hotel named ‘Olissia’ and found the petitioner and another person dealing in NDPS drugs. After complying with the formalities the accused were arrested 11.38gm of MDMA was siezed from the two accused apart from a large amount of money in their possession and thereafter remanded them to custody.

¶23

Sri.V.Sethunath, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is totally innocent of the allegations and that the contraband allegedly siezed was not MDMA. It was submitted that on subjecting the contraband to chemical analysis, the report revealed that the contraband was Methamphetamine and not MDMA

¶24

¶25

BAIL APPL. NO. 1531 OF 2023

¶26

and the commercial quantity of Methamphetamine being 50gms the contraband siezed from the two accused being only 11.38gm the quantity falls less than the commercial quantity. The learned counsel also pointed out that the petitioner was arrested on 11-01-2023 and therefore considering the quantity of Methamphetamine siezed and the period of detention already undergone apart from the age of the petitioner, which is stated to be only 20 years, the bail ought to be granted.

¶27

Smt.T.V.Neema, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that though it is true that on chemical analysis, the contraband siezed from the petitioner was found to be Methamphetamine and not MDMA as originally believed, the petitioner having been indulging in a serious crime, notwithstanding the period of detention already undergone bail ought not to be granted less prejudice be caused to the prosecution.

¶28

Copy of the chemical analysis report was handed over across the Bar. It shows that the contraband siezed in Crime No.65/2023 of Ernakulam North Police Station was found to be Methamphetamine. The commercial quantity of the said narcotic drug is 50gm. Therefore the quantity siezed from the petitioner is less than the commercial quantity.

¶29

Petitioner is only 20 years in age and he has already been in custody from 11-01-2023. Taking into consideration, the quantity siezed from the petitioner and the other accused apart from the period

¶30

¶31

BAIL APPL. NO. 1531 OF 2023

¶32

of detention already undergone as well as his young age, I am of the view that detention need not be continued any further. I am satisfied that this is a fit case where bail can be granted to the petitioner subject to strict conditions.

¶33

Accordingly, this application is allowed on the following conditions:-

¶34

(a) Petitioner shall be released on bail on him executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the court having jurisdiction.

¶35

(b) Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer as well as co-operate with the trial.

¶36

(c) Petitioner shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the witnesses; nor shall he tamper with the evidence.

¶37

(d) Petitioner shall not commit any similar offences while he is on bail.

¶38

(e) Petitioner shall not leave Kerala without the permission of the Court having jurisdiction.

¶39

If any of the above conditions are violated by the petitioner, the jurisdictional Court can cancel the bail in accordance with law.

¶40

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE

¶41

AJM/8/6/23

Niranjan. B v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Niranjan. B 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

Abid Nazar Vs State of Kerala

Amina Beebi, Vs the Public Prosecutor

K.v.Silvester Vs State of Kerala

Anoop.G, S/O.Gangadharan, Vs the State of Kerala

D. Anil Kumar Vs State of Kerala Represented by Its Public Prosecutor

D. Anil Kumar Vs State of Kerala