Allowed

Sangeeth v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC14 Jun 2023Bail Appl./2790/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed bail to the petitioner, a second accused in an NDPS case (Sections 25, 27(a), 22(b), 29). Finding that the seized quantity was below the commercial quantum for Methamphetamine, the Court held Section 37 did not apply and granted bail subject to bonds, appearance, and conduct restrictions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail on executing a bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties, undertaking to appear, not tamper with evidence, and not leave India.

Sangeeth Vs State of Kerala — Narcotics (NDPS) | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

BAIL APPL. NO. 2790 OF 2023

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 24TH JYAISHTA, 1945

¶6

BAIL APPL. NO. 2790 OF 2023

¶7

(Crime No.14/2023 of Ernakulam Excise Circle Office, Ernakulam

¶8

District)

¶9

PETITIONER/S:

¶10

SANGEETH
AGED 18 YEARS
KUNNUVILA VEETTIL, KOTTUVAKONAM, POOTHAKULAM P.O, KOLLAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 691302
BY ADVS.
M.I.MUHAMMED MUSTHAFA
S.J.SHEMEER
SYAM JESAN

¶11

RESPONDENT/S:

¶12

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

¶13

OTHER PRESENT:

¶14

PP SMT.SREEJA V

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.06.2023,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

BAIL APPL. NO. 2790 OF 2023

¶17

¶18

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.

¶19

======================== B.A.No.2790 of 2023

¶20

------------------------------------------------

¶21

Dated this the 14^th day of June 2023

¶22

ORDER

¶23

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

¶24

Petitioner is the 2^nd accused in Crime No.14/2023 of Excise Enforcement and Anti Narcotic Special Squad, Ernakulam District (wrongly mentioned as accused No.1 in the bail application). The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 25, 27(a), 22(c) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

¶25

According to the prosecution, the accused was found in possession of 25.2534 Grams of MDMA on 18.02.2023 and thereby committed the offences alleged.

¶26

Sri.M.I.Muhammed Musthafa, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the prosecution allegations are false and the incident as alleged had not occurred. It was further submitted that information has been received that the contraband on analysis was found to be not MDMA, but Methametamine Chloride and hence the offence has been altered from Section 22(c) to 22(b) of the NDPS Act. It was further submitted that considering the period of detention of the petitioner from 18.02.2023, he ought to be released on bail.

¶27

Smt.Sreeja.V., learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand opposed the grant of bail and submitted that though it is true that the

¶28

BAIL APPL. NO. 2790 OF 2023

¶29

¶30

contraband on analysis was revealed to be Methamphetamine Chloride, considering the quantity seized from the petitioner, bail ought not to be granted. It was further submitted that petitioner has not involved himself in any other crime, till date.

¶31

I have considered the rival contentions.

¶32

It is now revealed that the contraband seized is not MDMA, but Methamphetamine Chloride, the commercial quantity of which is 50 grams, while that of MDMA is 20 grams. It is therefore evident that the offence alleged against the petitioner falls under the category of possessing contraband less than the commercial quantity. Therefore, the restrictive provision under Section 37 of the NDPS Act will not apply. Petitioner is only 27 years of age and has already undergone detention from 18.02.2023.

¶33

Considering the quantity of drugs seized from the petitioner and the period of detention undergone, and also the fact that investigation is almost completed, apart from absence of any antecedents, I am of the view that petitioner can be released on bail subject to conditions:

¶34

Accordingly, this bail application is allowed on the following conditions

¶35

(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.

¶36

(b) Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required.

¶37

BAIL APPL. NO. 2790 OF 2023

¶38

¶39

¶40

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

¶41

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

¶42

In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation, if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law,

¶43

notwithstanding the bail having been granted by this Court.

¶44

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE

¶45

BAIL APPL. NO. 2790 OF 2023

¶46

¶47

APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 2790/2023

¶48

PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure1CRIME REPORT NO: 14/2023 OF ANTI NARCOTIC
SPECIAL SQUAD, ERNAKULAM DATED 18.02.2023
Annexure2THE COPY OF THE COURSE FEE PAID RECEIPT OF IMS
GROUP OF INSTITUTIONS, ERNAKULAM DATED
06.12.2022
Annexure3COPY OF THE SECONDARY SCHOOL LEAVING
CERTIFICATE
Annexure A1THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRL. MC
NO.1666/2023 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE 1ST
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT
ERNAKULAM DATED 09.06.2023

Sangeeth v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sangeeth 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

Vipin N.B Vs State of Kerala

Bharathi Sellappan Vs State of Kerala

Bhaskaran M. Vs State of Kerala

Shijoy T.T Vs State of Kerala

Vysakh M, Vs State of Kerala

T.D Das Vs State of Kerala