Allowed

Seby Sebastian, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC12 Jun 2024Bail Appl./2254/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail application by the 6th accused in an NDPS case involving seizure of over 500 kg of ganja from a lorry's secret chamber. Noting prolonged detention since October 2020, bail granted to co-accused, no pending antecedents and no flight risk, the court granted bail with conditions including bond, passport surrender and cooperation with investigation.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail on Rs.1,00,000 bond with two solvent sureties, subject to conditions including cooperation with investigation, surrender of passport and not leaving India without permissio

Seby Sebastian, 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 MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 12^TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 22ND JYAISHTA, 1946 BAIL APPL. NO. 2254 OF 2024

¶5

CRIME NO.10/2020 OF EXCISE ENFORCEMENT AND ANTI NARCOTIC SPECIAL SQUAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PETITIONER/ ACCUSED NO.6:

¶6

SEBY SEBASTIAN, AGED 29 YEARS S/O SEBASTIAN RESIDING AT KALLOOKKARAN HOUSE, CHERUKUNNU P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680689

¶7

BY ADVS. J.R.PREM NAVAZ S.DILEEP SATHYAN MUHAMMED SWADIQ SUMEEN S.

¶8

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT & STATE:

¶9

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

¶10

SMT.NIMA JACOB, PP

¶11

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶12

-2-

¶13

BA NO.2254/2024

¶14

MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., J.

¶15

BA No.2254 of 2024

¶16

Dated this the 12^th day of June, 2024

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

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

¶19

Petitioner is the 6th accused in Crime No.10/2020 of Excise Enforcement & Anti Narcotic Special Squad, Thiruvananthapuram. The offences alleged against him are punishable under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii) (C), 25 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (for short, 'NDPS Act').

¶20

The prosecution case is that, on 05.09.2020 at about 9.30 a.m., upon getting information, an inspection of a container lorry bearing registration No.AP-29-TB-3201 was conducted by Circle Inspector, Excise Enforcement and Anti Narcotic Special Squad, Thiruvananthapuram, along with his team. Thereupon, it was found that, in a secret chamber in the cabin of the said vehicle, 501.500 kg of ganja was concealed. The recovery of the articles was effected. The petitioner was arrested on 22.10.2020 and has been remanded to judicial custody since then.

¶21

-3-

¶22

BA NO.2254/2024

¶23

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶24

The learned counsel for the petitioner argues that A1 and A2 were granted bail and that the Annexure-A2 order, which granted bail to the 1st accused, mentions the role of A2, A3 and A5 and that the role of the 6th accused is comparatively minimal. He also argues that he is in custody from22.10.2020 onwards, claims parity with the accused 1 and 2, and prays for bail.

¶25

The learned public prosecutor opposes the bail application, stating that accused Nos.6 and 7 were in custody in connection with NDPS Crime No.6/2020 in the Mysore Central Jail, and their arrest was recorded as per orders of the court concerned on 22.10.2020.

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the very same allegations are levelled in the crime that was registered against him as Crime 6/2020. This is not disputed by the learned Public Prosecutor. While dismissing his earlier application dated 12.10.2023, it was noticed that there were two antecedents reported against him. Today, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor submits that he has only one antecedent under the Abkari Act and no antecedents under the NDPS Act.

¶27

The petitioner was arrested on 22.10.2020, and all the remaining accused have already been enlarged on bail. The learned public prosecutor submits that a Special leave petition has been filed against the order granting bail to the other accused, and the same is pending consideration.

¶28

-4-

¶29

BA NO.2254/2024

¶30

Taking note of the length of the detention, that there are no antecedents pending against the petitioner, that the completion of the trial of the case is likely to take time, and also since there is no apprehension raised by the prosecution that if released on bail the petitioner is likely to abscond, and also taking cue from the principles of law noticed in Mohd Muslim @ Hussain v. State (NCT of Delhi) [AIR 2023 SC 1648] and Rabi Prakash v. State of Odisha [2023 LiveLaw (SC) 533], I am inclined to grant bail this petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail subject to the following conditions:

¶31

(i) The petitioner shall be released on bail on executing 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.

¶32

(ii) The petitioner shall fully cooperate with the investigation.

¶33

(iii) The petitioner shall also appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required.

¶34

(iv) The petitioner shall surrender his passport before the jurisdictional court. If the petitioner does not have a passport, he shall execute an affidavit to that effect and file the same before the said court.

¶35

(v) The petitioner shall not commit any offence of a similar nature while on bail.

¶36

-5-

¶37

BA NO.2254/2024

¶38

(vi) The petitioner shall not make any attempt to contact any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or through any other person, or in any other way try to tamper with the evidence or influence any witnesses or other persons related to the investigation. (vii) The petitioner shall not leave India without the permission of the trial Court.

¶39

In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation of bail, if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law.

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.

JUDGE

dlk/12.06.2024

-6-

BA NO.2254/2024

APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 2254/2024

¶47

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES

¶48

ANNEXURE A1 THE 26. HON	TRUE COP 09.2023 IN 'BLE COURT	Y OF THE COMMON ORDER DATED B.A. NO: 9908 OF 2022 BY THIS
ANNEXURE A2 THE 26. HON	TRUE COP 09.2023 IN 'BLE COURT	Y OF THE COMMON ORDER DATED B.A. NO: 8797 OF 2023 BY THIS
ANNEXURE A3 THE IN HON	TRUE COPY B.A. NO: 'BLE COURT	OF THE ORDER DATED 12.10.2023 7656 OF 2023 PASSED BY THIS

¶49

-7-

¶50

BA NO.2254/2024

Seby Sebastian, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Seby Sebastian, 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

Noufal K, Vs the Vellamunda Grama Panchayath

Neelambari Preetham Vs Thiruvananthapuram Corporation

Muhammed Ali Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer,Corrected as

Sharafudheen E.P @ Vava @ Sharafu, Vs State of Kerala

Vimal. S. Narayanan, Vs Cherpu Grama Panchayath

John Gomez, Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Noufal K, Vs the Vellamunda Grama Panchayath

Neelambari Preetham Vs Thiruvananthapuram Corporation

Muhammed Ali Vs *the Revenue Divisional Officer,*Corrected as

Sharafudheen E.P @ Vava @ Sharafu, Vs State of Kerala

Vimal. S. Narayanan, Vs Cherpu Grama Panchayath

John Gomez, Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

Muhammed Ali Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer,Corrected as