Allowed

Suresh v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC12 Jun 2023Bail Appl./505/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala granted regular bail to the 6th accused, alleged to have financed MDMA procurement, citing significant trial delay, lack of criminal antecedents, and similarity to a co-accused's bail order, applying Fasil and B.A.No.2276/2022.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail with a bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with two sureties each for like sum, subject to conditions regarding witness intimidation, trial cooperation, and passport surrender.

Suresh 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

¶4

MONDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 22ND JYAISHTA, 1945

¶5

BAIL APPL. NO. 505 OF 2023

¶6

IN CRIME NO.853/2021 OF ANGAMALY POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.6:

¶8

SURESH
AGED 38 YEARS
HOUSE NO 1/1500-A,
5TH CROSS STREET,
BALAMURUGAN NAGAR,
ATTENTHANGAL SHOLAVARAM TALUK,
THIRUVALLOOR DISTRICT,
TAMIL NADU, PIN – 600052
BY ADVS.
V.JOHN SEBASTIAN RALPH
APOORVA RAMKUMAR
VISHNU CHANDRAN
RALPH RETI JOHN
APPU BABU
SHIFNA MUHAMMED SHUKKUR
GIRIDHAR KRISHNA KUMAR
GEETHU T.A.

¶9

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶10

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

¶11

BY ADV
NEEMA.T.V
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶12

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
12.06.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

B.A.No.505 of 2023

¶14

¶15

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.

¶16

================== B.A.No.505 of 2023

¶17

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

¶18

Dated this the 12^th day of June, 2023

¶19

ORDER

¶20

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

¶21

Petitioner is the 6^th accused in Crime No.853/2021 of Angamaly Police Station, Ernakulam, alleging offences under Sections 8(c), 22(c), 27A and Section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. At present, the case is pending as S.C.No.1150/2021 on the files of the Additional Sessions Court-VIII, Ernakulam.

¶22

According to the prosecution, accused 6 and 7 arranged for 2.018 kgs of MDMA from Chennai, which was transported to Kerala in a pickup vehicle by accused No.1 and 2 and on 05.06.2021 at about 7.15 pm, near karukutty, the accused were found in possession of the said contraband and thereby they committed the offences alleged.

¶23

Sri. John Sebastian Ralph, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, petitioner was arrested on 14.06.2021, and he has been in custody for the last almost two years. It was further submitted that, petitioner’s role is alleged to be financing the

¶24

B.A.No.505 of 2023

¶25

¶26

procurement of the contraband and there are no materials to connect him with the crime. It was further stated that, accused No.5 who was also alleged to have financed, and arranged the car for transporting the contraband, was released on bail by order of this Court on 02.06.2023, taking into account the absence of criminal antecedents and also the delay in conduct of trial. The learned counsel further submitted that, petitioner stands on the same footing as the 5^th accused, as he has no antecedents and also that petitioner is alleged to have provided finance for purchasing the alleged contraband.

¶27

Smt. Neema.T.V, the learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application and submitted that, petitioner is one of the two persons who had financed the procurement of the narcotic drug and considering the quantity seized from accused 1 and 2 and the nature of offence alleged against the petitioner, bail ought not to be granted, despite the lapse of almost two years from the date of arrest. It was further submitted that, the case against the 5^th accused stands on a different footing and therefore, no parallel can be drawn with the order granting bail to the said accused.

¶28

I have considered the rival contentions.

¶29

On a perusal of the order dated 02.06.2023 in B.A.No.2276/2022, it is noticed that the 5^th accused is alleged to have entrusted Rs.3.2 lakhs with the 4^th accused for the purpose of

¶30

B.A.No.505 of 2023

¶31

¶32

purchasing the contraband. He is also alleged to have arranged the car for transportation of the contraband. The allegations against the petitioner as the 6^th accused is that, he had also financed procurement of the contraband. On an appreciation of the aforesaid circumstances, it is seen that 5^th accused as well as the petitioner stands on practically the same footing-financing the procurement of the contraband.

¶33

Petitioner was arrested on 14.06.2021 and he has been in custody for the last 728 days. The trial in S.C.No.1150/2021 on the files of the Additional Sessions Court-VIII, Ernakulam, has not yet started. As observed by this Court in B.A.No.2276/2022, there is no possibility of the trial commencing within six months. Even though, at this stage, petitioner cannot be said to be innocent of the allegations, having regard to the period of detention already undergone, and the inability to commence the trial within six months, apart form the complicity of the petitioner not being on the basis of conscious possession of the contraband, I am of the view that the decision in Fasil v. State of Kerala [2023 (3) KHC 212] can be applied to the facts of the present case. It is relevant to note at this juncture that, petitioner has no criminal antecedents in his name.

¶34

Though it is observed in the order in B.A.No.2276/2022 that the grant of bail to the 5^th accused cannot by itself be a reason for

¶35

B.A.No.505 of 2023

¶36

¶37

granting bail to the other accused, I am of the view that, since petitioner stands on the same footing as that of the 5^th accused, there is no reason why the principle adopted in B.A.No.2276/2022 be not applicable to the petitioner also.

¶38

Taking into reckoning the aforesaid circumstances, I am of the view that, despite petitioner being alleged to have committed an offence under Section 22(C) of the NDPS Act, this bail application can be allowed and the petitioner be released on the following conditions.

¶39

a) Petitioner shall execute a bond for Rs.1,00,000/(Rupees One Lakh only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Jurisdictional Court.

¶40

b) Petitioner shall not intimidate the witnesses or tamper with evidence. He shall co-operate with the trial and shall be available for trial.

¶41

c) Petitioner shall not leave India without the permission of the Jurisdictional Court.

¶42

d) Petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat of promise to any person acquainted with the facts of this case, so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any Police Officer.

¶43

e) The petitioner shall surrender his passport before the Jurisdictional Court on the date of execution of t he bail bond or within ten days therefrom, with special permission of the Jurisdictional Court. If the petitioner has

¶44

B.A.No.505 of 2023

¶45

¶46

no passport, he shall file an affidavit to that effect, instead of surrendering passport, within the stipulated time.

¶47

f) The petitioner shall not involve in any other offence during the currency of bail and any such event, if reported or came to the notice of this court, the same shall be a reason to cancel the bail hereby granted.

¶48

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, notwithstanding the bail having been granted by this Court.

¶49

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE

¶50

jka/12.06.23.

Suresh v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Krishna C.G, Vs the State of Kerala

Babu v Vs State of Kerala

Bindhu v. S Vs State of Kerala Rep. by Public Prosecutor

Naseeb Kunju Vs State of Kerala

Joshy Thomas Vs State of Kerala

Vijayan, Vs State of Kerala