Allowed

Muhammed Haneef v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC9 Feb 2023Bail Appl./888/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment grants regular bail to the second accused in a case involving possession and transport of MDMA under the NDPS Act, considering him a first-time offender and noting the investigation is complete with the charge sheet filed.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on bail on Rs. 50,000 bond with two solvent sureties for Rs. 50,000 each.

Muhammed Haneef 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 A. BADHARUDEEN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023 / 20TH MAGHA, 1944
BAIL APPL. NO. 888 OF 2023

¶5

CRMP.NO.1989/2022 OF SPECIAL COURT FOR SC/ST (POA) ACT & NDPS ACT CASES, MANJERI

¶6

CRIME NO. 624/2022 OF PANDIKAD POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM

¶7

PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED:

¶8

MUHAMMED HANEEFA
AGED 26 YEARS
S/O RASHEED, PULIKKAL HOUSE, KOLAPPARAMB P.O.,
PANDIKKAD, ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 676522
BY ADVS.
SUNIL KUMAR A.G
GEORGE MATHEW
DIPU JAMES
MATHEW K.T.
GEORGE K.V.

¶9

RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT:

¶10

1STATE OF KERALA
REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
2THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
PANDIKKAD POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT -676521,
THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM, PIN – 682031

¶11

BY SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.G.MANU

¶12

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
09.02.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

BAIL APPL. NO. 888 OF 2023 2

¶14

ORDER

¶15

Dated this the 9^th day of February, 2023

¶16

This is an application for regular bail, filed by the 2^nd accused in Crime No.624/2022 of Pandikad Police Station, Malappuram.

¶17

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned

¶18

Public Prosecutor.

¶19

The prosecution allegation is that at 19.45 hrs on 2.12.2022, the 1^st accused was found in possession of 7.22 grams of MDMA at Karaya Khaja Nagar and he was arrested along with the contraband. Later, it was revealed that the 2^nd accused is the person, who transported the contraband from Bangalore and given the same to the 1^st accused for sale. On this premise, prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 22(b) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘the NDPS’ hereinafter), by the accused.

¶20

While pressing grant of regular bail to the petitioner, who has been in custody from 3.12.2022, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent and he is a first time offender. He also pointed out that

¶21

BAIL APPL. NO. 888 OF 2023 3

¶22

this Court granted bail to the 1^st accused as per order in B.A.No.90/2023, dated 18.1.2023.

¶23

Whereas, the learned Public Prosecutor opposed bail on the submission that very serious offences are alleged to be committed and the petitioner herein is the person, who procured MDMA from Bangalore and entrusted the same to the 1^st accused to sell the same. Therefore, the complicity of the 2^nd accused is more than that of the 1^st accused. However, the learned Public Prosecutor not pointed out any criminal antecedents against the petitioner herein.

¶24

In this matter, the petitioner has been in custody from 3.12.2022 and the investigation, requiring his custody, is over since charge sheet filed before the court. Further, the petitioner is a first time offender. In consideration of all the above facts, including grant of bail to the 1^st accused, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner herein.

¶25

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed and the petitioner can be enlarged on bail on the following conditions:

¶26

i. The petitioner shall be released on bail on his executing bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with two solvent sureties, each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the Special Court concerned.

¶27

BAIL APPL. NO. 888 OF 2023 4

¶28

ii. The petitioner shall not intimidate the witnesses or tamper with evidence. He shall co-operate with the trial and shall be available for trial.

¶29

iii. The petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of this case, so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court.

¶30

iv. The petitioner shall surrender his passport before the Special Court on the date of execution of the bail bond, or within seven days therefrom. If the petitioner has no passport, he shall file affidavit to that effect, accordingly.

¶31

v. 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.

Sd/-

A. BADHARUDEEN JUDGE

//TRUE COPY//

PA TO JUDGE

Muhammed Haneef v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muhammed Haneef 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dhillan Vs State of Kerala

Subrahmania Rao Vs State of Kerala

Jayesh P. J. Vs State of Kerala

Mohammed Hassan K. a. Vs State of Kerala

Saju Sony Vs State of Kerala

Baiju K.T Vs State of Kerala