Dismissed

Sooraj J v. State of Kerala Represented by the Public Prosecutor

Kerala HC20 Jul 2023Bail Appl./3295/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court dismissed a bail application filed under Section 439 CrPC by the second accused in an NDPS case involving commercial quantity of MDMA. The court held there was no merit due to established role, investigation evidence, and lack of justification to satisfy dual conditions. Criminal antecedents were also noted.

What did the court decide?

Bail application dismissed. Petitioner remains in judicial detention.

Sooraj J Vs State of Kerala Represented by the Public… — 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.

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 20^TH DAY OF JULY 2023 / 29TH ASHADHA, 1945

¶5

BAIL APPL. NO. 3295 OF 2023

¶6

CRIME NO.193 OF 2023 OF TOWN NORTH POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.6:

¶8

SOORAJ J

¶9

AGED 31 YEARS

¶10

S/O JAYAPRAKASH, SOORAJ NIVAS, PUNUKKANOOR, CHERUKARAMOOLA, KOTTAMKARA VILLAGE, PERUMPUZHA P.O. KOLLAM, PIN - 691504

¶11

BY ADV SUMESH CHAKKADATH SUBRAMANIAN C S

¶12

RESPONDENTS/STATE AND INVESTIGATING OFFICER:

¶13

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF COURT, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031

¶14

2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER TOWN NORTH POLICE STATION PALAKKAD, PIN - 678001

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.07.2023, THE

¶16

COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

¶18

BAIL APPL. NO.3295 OF 2023

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

This is an application filed u/s 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking regular bail.

¶21

The petitioner is the 2^nd accused in Crime No.193/2023 of Town North Police Station, Palakkad. The offences alleged against the petitioner and the other accused are under Sections 22(c) r/w. 29 of the Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, 'the Act').

¶22

The prosecution case is that on 17.02.2023 at Palakkad Railway Station, accused No.1 was found in possession of 111.64 gms of MDMA. During the course of investigation, it was revealed that the said contraband article was brought by the first accused from Bengaluru for the purpose of the petitioner. Accordingly the petitioner was implicated as the 2^nd accused and the petitioner was arrested on 24.03.2023 while he was under detention in connection with Crime No.117/2023 of Kollengode Police Station. Since then, the petitioner has been under detention. This application for regular bail is submitted, in such circumstances.

¶23

Heard Sri.C.S. Sumesh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.C.S.Hrithwik, learned Senior Public

¶24

BAIL APPL. NO.3295 OF 2023

¶25

¶26

Prosecutor appearing for the State.

¶27

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent of all the allegations. It is pointed out that no contraband articles were recovered from the possession of the petitioner and there is nothing to indicate his role in the commission of the offences. The petitioner has been in judicial custody from 24.03.2023 and there is no purpose in keeping him under judicial detention.

¶28

On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor opposes the said application by pointing out that, the role of the petitioner is clearly established from the materials which they could collect during the course of investigation. Besides, the confession statement of the first accused, there are call data records and evidences of transferring the amounts for the purchase of contraband articles. The petitioner is also involved in another crime i.e. crime No.117/2023 wherein similar nature of offences for transporting narcotic drugs in commercial quantity was involved. Therefore, the dismissal of the application was sought.

¶29

I have gone through the records. It is evident that, there are certain materials which would indicate the role of the

¶30

BAIL APPL. NO.3295 OF 2023

¶31

¶32

petitioner. The specific case of the prosecution is that the first accused brought the contraband article for the purpose of the second accused. They rely on the call data records and the bank transactions between the parties. The matter is even now under investigation. The quantity involved is commercial and hence rigour under Section 37 of the Act would come into play. The petitioner is also having criminal antecedents.

¶33

In such circumstances, I do not find any justifiable reasons to record the satisfaction of the dual conditions contemplated under Section 37 of the Act. In such circumstances, I do not find any merit in this application.

¶34

Accordingly, this Bail Application is dismissed.

¶35

Sd/-

¶36

ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.

¶37

JUDGE

¶38

shg

¶39

BAIL APPL. NO.3295 OF 2023

¶40

¶41

APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 3295/2023

¶42

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

¶43

Annexure1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CMP 1372/2023 OF SESSION COURT PALAKKAD DATED 18/04/2023

Sooraj J v. State of Kerala Represented by the Public Prosecutor

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sooraj J v. State of Kerala Represented by the Public Prosecutor

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

Shaji Vs State of Kerala

Shaijuroshan U.V Vs State of Kerala

Manu Mohan Vs State of Kerala

Manoj Borah Vs State of Kerala

Sooraj J Vs State of Kerala Represented by the Public Prosecutor

Rajeev M., Vs State of Kerala