Dismissed

Shaji v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC19 Jul 2023Bail Appl./817/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under NDPS Act, the High Court of Kerala rejected the plea of the second accused involved in the seizure of hashish oil and charas. The court held that as the quantity was commercial, the rigour of Section 37 applied where the twin conditions for bail were not met despite evidence suggesting lack of initial conscious possession.

What did the court decide?

Bail application dismissed. No order for expedition in the trial.

Shaji 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.

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 19^TH DAY OF JULY 2023 / 28TH ASHADHA, 1945 BAIL APPL. NO. 817 OF 2023

¶5

Crime No. 35/2022 of Chalakkudy Excise Range

¶6

PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED:

¶7

SHAJI AGED 26 YEARS S/O NAVAS, PALLIPARAMBIL HOUSE, PUTHUVAIPPU DESOM, KOCHI TALUK, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682508 BY ADVS. C.Y.VINOD KUMAR C.ANILKUMAR (KALLESSERIL) P.M.MANASH

¶8

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶9

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

¶10

OTHER PRESENT:

¶11

PP C.S HRITWICK

¶12

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.07.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

B.A.No. 817/2023

..2..

O R D E R

The petitioner is the 2^nd accused in Crime No. 35/2022 of Chalakkudy Excise Range. The offences alleged against the petitioner and other accused are punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)C, 29 & 60(3) of the NDPS Act, 1985.

¶17

The prosecution case is that, on 28.10.2022 at 3.45 p.m, the accused Nos. 1 to 3 were found in possession of 3.800 Kg of Hashish Oil and 120 grams of Charas and they were transporting the same in a Lorry near to Potta Asramam Junction and thereby committed the offences. The petitioner and the other accused were arrested on the same day and since then, they have been under judicial detention. This application for regular bail is submitted in such circumstances.

¶18

Heard Sri.C.Anil Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.C.S.Hrithwik, learned Public Prosecutor for the State.

¶19

The specific contention put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, the petitioner was not in

¶20

B.A.No. 817/2023

¶21

..3..

¶22

conscious of possession of the contraband articles seized. According to him, he was accompanying by the 1^st accused, the driver of the Lorry, for purchasing birds from Tamil Nadu, and during the transit, the 1^st accused, brought the contraband articles. Even though, the learned counsel places reliance upon the confession statement given by the petitioner before the police, wherein, the intention expressed by the petitioner to travel alone, when the presence of contraband articles came to his knowledge, was seen recorded. Thus the petitioner points out, he is innocent of all the allegations and does not have any criminal antecedents as well.

¶23

On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor opposes the said application by pointing out that, from the materials placed on record, it is evident that the petitioner was aware of the existence of contraband article in the vehicle. The quantity involved comes under the category of commercial quantity; therefore the denial of the application is sought.

¶24

I have gone through the records. As rightly pointed out by the learned Public Prosecuto r, going by the materials

¶25

B.A.No. 817/2023

¶26

..4..

¶27

placed on record including the confession statement given by the petitioner/2 nd accused, it is seen that, he traveled along with the 1 st accused with the knowledge of existence of the contraband articles until the vehic le was seized along with the contraband articles. The quantity involved is huge and since it is a commercial quantity, the rigour under Section 37 of the NDPS Act would come into play. Even though, I have carefully gone through the entire materials placed before me including the contents of Case Diary, I could not find anything to record the satisfaction of the twin conditions contemplated under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

¶28

On the last occasion, when the matter came up before this Court, a report was called for, from the IV Addl. Sessions Court, Thrissur, where the matter is now pending as S.C.419/2023, as to the probable time required to complete the trial of the case under the normal circumstances. In response to the same, it is reported that, the trial of the said case would take at least one year.

¶29

After considering all the materials placed before me, I do

¶30

B.A.No. 817/2023

¶31

..5..

¶32

not find any justifiable reason to grant bail to the petitioner. In such circumstances, this application is dismissed, by observing that, every endeavor shall be taken by the learned Special Judge to complete the trial as expeditiously as possible.

¶33

Sd/-

¶34

ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE

¶35

rpk

Shaji v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaji 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

Xxx Vs State of Kerala

Pramod Prathapan Vs State of Kerala

Pratheesh, Vs State of Kerala

Shaijuroshan U.V Vs State of Kerala

Manu Mohan Vs State of Kerala

Baiju K.P Vs State of Kerala