Dismissed

Vineeth v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC7 Jul 2023Bail Appl./2104/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed the bail application of Vineeth, the second accused in a narcotics case. The court found a prima facie case and noted the commercial quantity of contraband, making Section 37 of the NDPS Act applicable, rendering the petitioner unfit for bail.

What did the court decide?

Bail application dismissed as the court is not satisfied that bail can be granted under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

Vineeth 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 ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. FRIDAY, THE 7^TH DAY OF JULY 2023 / 16TH ASHADHA, 1945

¶4

BAIL APPL. NO. 2104 OF 2023

¶5

CRIME NO.26 OF 22 OF MAVELIKKARA EXCISE CIRCLE OFFICE, ALAPPUZHA,

¶6

PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2:

¶7

VINEETH AGED 30 YEARS S/O VIJAYAN, KALEKKAL VADAKKATHIL HOUSE, MANAKKAD MURI, MAVELIKARA VILLAGE, MAVELIKARA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 690101

¶8

BY ADVS. BASIL CHANDY VAVACHAN CHARUTHA BHAIJU GEORGIE SIMON CHANDHANA BHAIJU BASIL SAJAN BASIL SCARIA

¶9

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶10

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,

¶11

PIN - 682031

¶12

OTHER PRESENT:

¶13

ADV SREEJA V -SR PP

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.07.2023, THE

¶15

COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

BAIL APPL. NO.2104 OF 2023

¶17

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

The petitioner is the second accused in crime No.26/2022 of the Excise Range Office, Mavelikkara. The offences alleged against the petitioner and other accused are under Section 20(b) (ii)C of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, 'the Act').

¶20

The prosecution case is that on 30.08.2022 at about 12.10 a.m, when the Excise Inspector, Excise Range Office, Mavelikkara, found the accused persons sitting in a car and on inspection, it was found that, the first accused was possessing 20 gms. of ganja, and second accused was possessing 10 gms of ganja and a further 50 gms of ganja was recovered from the dashboard of the car. Based on the information received from the first accused during the interrogation, a further inspection was conducted in the residence of the first accused, from which, 21.11 kg of ganja was seized. The crime was registered in such circumstances, and the arrest of the petitioner was recorded on the same day and since then, he has been under judicial

¶21

BAIL APPL. NO.2104 OF 2023

¶22

¶23

detention. This application for regular bail was submitted, in such circumstances.

¶24

Heard Sri. Basil Chandy Vavachan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. Sreeja V., learned Senior Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.

¶25

I have gone through the records. The learned counsel for the petitioner raised various contentions in support of the claim of innocence of the petitioner. One of the crucial contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the recovery affected from the petitioner was only 10 gms and the remaining quantity was recovered from the possession of the first accused and also from the residence of the first accused. The petitioner specifically highlights certain discrepancies in the records as to the quantity of the contraband article allegedly recovered from the accused persons.

¶26

On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor points out that, during the search conducted in the residence of the first accused, the Aadhar card of the petitioner was found. Besides the same, the first accused had given a confession statement to the effect that he was conducting the business along with the petitioner and they used to procure the contraband articles

¶27

BAIL APPL. NO.2104 OF 2023

¶28

¶29

together. During the course of the investigation, the prosecution also could collect the call data records of the accused persons from which it was revealed that, during the relevant period, several calls were made between the parties and the investigation also revealed the details of the several monetary transactions between them which are reflected in the bank account of the petitioner

¶30

When all the aforesaid aspects are taken into consideration, I am satisfied that there is a prima facie case against the petitioner. Since the quantity involved is commercial, the rigour of Section 37 of the Act is applicable. When the parameters to be considered in the light of Section 37 of the Act are applied, I find that this is not a fit case in which bail can be granted to the petitioner.

¶31

Accordingly, the Bail Application is dismissed.

¶32

Sd/- ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE

¶33

shg

¶34

BAIL APPL. NO.2104 OF 2023

¶35

¶36

APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 2104/2023

¶37

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

¶38

Annexure-1	THE TRUE COPY OF OCCURRENCE REPORT DATED 30/08/2022 IN CRIME NO. 26/2022 OF MAVELIKARA EXCISE RANGE OFFICER
Annexure-2	THE TRUE COPY OF SEIZURE MAHAZER DATED 30/08/2022 IN CRIME NO. 26/2022 OF MAVELIKARA EXCISE RANGE OFFICER
Annexure-3	THE TRUE COPY OF SEARCH LIST OF THE PETITIONER
Annexure-4	THE TRUE COPY OF ARREST MEMO OF THE PETITIONER DATED 30/08/2022
Annexure-5	THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12/10/2022 IN CRL. MP NO. 4042/2022 BEFORE THE HONOURABLE COURT OF SESSIONS JUDGE, ALAPPUZHA.
Annexure-6	THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 3/11/2022 IN CRL. MP NO. 4412/2022 BEFORE THE HONOURABLE COURT OF SESSIONS JUDGE, ALAPPUZHA

Vineeth v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vineeth 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

Anandhu Vs State of Kerala

K. Padma Sundaran Pillai Vs State of Kerala

Sangeeth Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Sakeer.B.S Vs State of Kerala

Ashraf K.S Vs State of Kerala

Maheen Vs State of Kerala