Dismissed

Shinoy C.J v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC10 Jan 2024Bail Appl./11361/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a second anticipatory bail application for the third accused in an NDPS case involving hashish oil possession. The court held the petitioner lacked merits for bail due to evidence of financial complicity noted in an earlier order. The court directed surrender within seven days or face arrest.

What did the court decide?

Direction to surrender before investigating officer within seven days, else arrest.

Shinoy C.J Vs State of Kerala — Narcotics (NDPS) | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 10^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2024 / 20TH POUSHA, 1945

¶5

BAIL APPL. NO. 11361 OF 2023

¶6

CRIME NO.23/2022 OF EXCISE ENFORCEMENT AND ANTI NARCOTIC SPECIAL SQUAD, PALAKKAD, PALAKKAD

¶7

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT BAIL APPL. 1339/2023 OF HIGH COURT OF

¶8

KERALA

¶9

PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.3:

¶10

SHINOY C.J AGED 28 YEARS S/O JOHN CHIRAPPURATH HOUSE, ADAKKATHODE, KARIAMKAPPE, KELAKAM, KANNUR, PIN - 670674

¶11

BY ADV M.P.SUNITHA BEEGUM

¶12

RESPONDENTS:

¶13

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

¶14

2 ASSISTANT EXCISE COMMISSIONER OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT EXCISE COMMISSIONER, NEAR DISTRICT PANCHAYATH OFFICE, PALAKKAD, PIN – 678001

¶15

SRI.DENNY K DEVASSY, SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶16

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.01.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

BAIL APPL. NO.11361 OF 2023

¶18

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Dated this the 10^th day of January, 2024

¶21

This is the second anticipatory bail application filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking pre-arrest bail and the petitioner is the 3^rd accused in crime No.23/2022 of Excise Enforcement and Anti Narcotic Special Squad, Palakkad, where the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii) (C), 27A and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.

¶22

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the case diary and the detailed report furnished by the Investigating Officer, highlighting the complicity of the petitioner in this crime.

¶23

The prosecution case is that, at about 12.30 pm on 11.08.2022, accused Nos.1 and 2 were found in

¶24

BAIL APPL. NO.11361 OF 2023 3

¶25

possession of 5.274 kilogram of hashish oil near Palakkad Junction Railway Station platform, against the prohibitions contained in the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred as 'NDPS Act', for short). Accordingly, accused Nos.1 and 2 were nabbed red handedly and crime was registered alleging the above offences.

¶26

Later, on questioning the 1^st accused, he has divulged that, he along with the 2^nd accused transported commercial quantity of contraband from Andra Pradesh to Kerala as requested by the petitioner herein and the petitioner has financially helped them, for the same. Accordingly the petitioner also got arrayed as an accused in this crime.

¶27

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, the petitioner is innocent and he has no connection with the possession or transport of contraband. But the Excise Enforcement and Anti Narcotic Special Squad

¶28

BAIL APPL. NO.11361 OF 2023 4

¶29

insisting his appearance before them and if so the petitioner apprehends arrest at their hands. Thus anticipatory bail application is being pressed into.

¶30

Opposing anticipatory bail to the petitioner, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that, when the 1^st accused was questioned after recovery of 5.274 kilogram of hashish oil at 12.30 pm on 11.08.2022, he had given statement that, he had purchased the contraband for the petitioner herein and for which Rs.15,000/- was transferred by the petitioner to the account of Balamani, who is the wife of the brother of the 1^st accused. That apart, the petitioner herein deposited Rs.1,48,000/- through the account of Deepa Suresh to the account of the 2^nd accused. Further, Rs.20,000/- was directly deposited by the petitioner in the account of the 2^nd accused. Then, the investigation conducted by the Investigating Officer revealed deposit of a

¶31

total sum of Rs.1,98,000/- by the petitioner. Further, immediate withdrawal of the said amount, on deposit, also

¶32

BAIL APPL. NO.11361 OF 2023 5

¶33

gathered from the account details provided by Union Bank of India pertaining to account No. 427702010020446 for the period of 01.06.2022 to 31.08.2022.

¶34

Earlier, the anticipatory bail application filed by the petitioner has been dismissed as per order in B.A. No.1339/2023 dated 08.03.2023. In fact, the petitioner, who alleged to have involved in a very serious offence, does not deserve anticipatory bail since arrest and custodial interrogation are absolutely necessary, as found earlier. Therefore, this petition lacks merits and is accordingly, dismissed.

¶35

It is shocking to note that even after the dismissal

¶36

of the anticipatory bail plea at the instance of the 3^rd accused/petitioner herein, the Investigating Officer miserably failed to arrest and proceed against the petitioner and the same shows carelessness on the part of the Investigating Officer in properly investigating the crime. The attitude of the Investigating Officer is noted with extreme displeasure.

¶37

BAIL APPL. NO.11361 OF 2023

¶38

¶39

Therefore, there shall be a direction to the petitioner to surrender before the Investigating Officer within

¶40

a period of seven days from today and on failure to do so, the Investigating Officer shall proceed with the arrest of the petitioner in accordance with law to effectuate investigation.

¶41

Sd/A. BADHARUDEEN JUDGE

¶42

nkr

Shinoy C.J v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shinoy C.J 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

D.P. Varada Kumari Vs Leela Evanchalin

Devarajan Vs Vilasini

Shan M.S, Vs State of Kerala

Pazhani @ Muthupandi@ Surya Pandi@ Charaya Pandi Vs State of Kerala

Mariamma Varghese Vs Varghese Joseph

Pavizhamma Vs Mangalamma