Allowed

Abhijith v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC16 Feb 2023Bail Appl./345/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, the 3rd accused in an NDPS case, applied for regular bail. Court found that he had spent 190 days in custody and the final report was not filed despite dismissed extension petition by prosecution. Held petitioner entitled to default bail.

What did the court decide?

Statutory bail granted on execution of bond with sureties and compliance with specified conditions including appearance and non-interference.

Abhijith 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

THURSDAY, THE 16^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023 / 27TH MAGHA, 1944

¶5

BAIL APPL. NO. 345 OF 2023

¶6

CRIME NO.337/2022 OF Vandanmedu Police Station, Idukki

¶7

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENTBail Appl. 9150/2022 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶8

PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.3:

¶9

ABHIJITH,AGED 25 YEARS S/O. SIBI THOMAS, KADASSERIL HOUSE, MUKKADABHAGOM, KARTHIKAPURAM, UDAYAGIRI VILLAGE, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670571

¶10

BY ADVS. M.T.SURESHKUMAR DARSAN SOMANATH MANJUSHA K SREELAKSHMI SABU

¶11

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶12

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

¶13

BY SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR C.K.SURESH

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.02.2023,

¶15

THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

BA No.345 of 2023

VIJU ABRAHAM, J.

................................................................. B.A.No.345 of 2023

¶20

................................................................. Dated this the 16^th day of February, 2023

¶21

ORDER

¶22

This is an application for regular bail.

¶23

Petitioner is the 3^rd accused in Crime No.337 of 2022 of Vandanmedu Police Station, Idukki District registered alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 22(c), 22(a), 20(b) (ii)A, 27(A) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.

¶24

The prosecution allegation is that on 26.04.2022 at about 12.30 a.m., 1^st accused was found in possession of 60 gms of MDMA, 20 gms of hashish oil kept in seven small tins and seven numbers of LSD stamps on the side of public road in front of Cochin Bakery at Puliyanmala Junction in Vandanmedu Village for the purpose of sale and he was arrested from there. During the investigation it was revealed that the 3^rd accused / petitioner herein is also involved in the crime, as he had received Rs.65,596/- in his bank account from the 2^nd accused and transferred that amount into the account of the 4^th accused who was dealing with the narcotic transaction with the 1^st accused and thus committed the aforesaid offences.

¶25

BA No.345 of 2023

¶26

¶27

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has absolutely no role in the commission of the alleged crime. When the matter came up for consideration the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has undergone 190 days in custody and no final report has been filed and the extension petition preferred by the prosecution has been dismissed by the court below and therefore he is entitled for statutory bail as on the date.

¶28

Learned Senior Public Prosecutor upon instructions submitted that it is true that the extension petition preferred by the prosecution has been dismissed by the court below and since the final report has not been filed as on the date, petitioner is entitled for statutory bail.

¶29

Considering the abovesaid aspects, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled for default bail. In the result, the application is allowed and the petitioner is granted bail on the following conditions:

¶30

(i) The petitioner shall execute a bond for Rs.50,000/(Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court.

¶31

(ii) He shall appear before the investigating officer in Crime No.337 of 2022 of Vandanmedu Police Station, Idukki District on all Saturdays at 11.00 a.m. till the filing of the final report.

¶32

(iii) He shall not leave the State of Kerala without obtaining

¶33

BA No.345 of 2023

¶34

¶35

prior permission from the jurisdictional court.

¶36

(iv) He shall not attempt to interfere with the investigation or to

¶37

influence any witness in the abovesaid crime.

¶38

(v) He shall not involve in any other crime while on bail.

¶39

If any of the aforesaid conditions are violated, the

¶40

investigating officer in Crime No.337 of 2022 of Vandanmedu Police Station, Idukki District may file an application before the jurisdictional court, for cancellation of bail.

Sd/-

VIJU ABRAHAM

JUDGE

cks

Abhijith v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abhijith 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

Niahsudeen J Vs the Pangode Grama Panchayath

Thankappan N.V. Vs the Koratty Grama Panchayat

Sakshi, Vs State of Kerala

Neethu Varghese Vs the State of Kerala

Smt Roji Robinson Vs the State of Kerala

Ammini Jose Vs the State of Kerala