Dismissed

Videep, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC15 Mar 2024Bail Appl./689/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Kerala rejected bail applications filed by two accused charged with NDPS offences involving MDMA and Ganja. The court found substantial material connecting the petitioners to the crime and highlighted the rigorous bail regime under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

What did the court decide?

Bail applications rejected. Petitioners ordered to remain in custody until orders of the High Court are made.

Videep, 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

FRIDAY, THE 15^TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 25TH PHALGUNA, 1945 BAIL APPL. NO. 10485 OF 2023

¶5

CRIME NO.399/2023 OF CHAVARA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM

¶6

PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2:

¶7

ALTHAF, AGED 21 YEARS S/O. SHEREEFKUTTI, ALTHAF MANZIL, VELLIMON, NATHIRIKKAL, KUNDARA, KOLLAM, PIN - 764002

¶8

BY ADV BIJU .C. ABRAHAM

¶9

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT & STATE:

¶10

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

¶11

BY SMT.NIMA JACOB, PP

¶12

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING ON 13.03.2024, ALONG WITH BAIL APPL..689/2024, THE COURT ON 15.3.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

BA Nos.10485 of 2023 & 689 of 2024

¶14

-2-

¶15

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶16

PRESENT

¶17

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P. FRIDAY, THE 15^TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 25TH PHALGUNA, 1945 BAIL APPL. NO. 689 OF 2024

¶18

CRIME NO.399/2023 OF CHAVARA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM

¶19

PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.4:

¶20

VIDEEP, AGED 24 YEARS S/O. VIKRAMAN PILLAI, ROHINI, PANTHAPLAVU.P.O., PATTAZHY, KOLLAM, PIN - 691522

¶21

BY ADVS. K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN N.P.ASHA SUMODH MADHAVAN NAIR

¶22

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT & STATE:

¶23

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

¶24

BY SMT.NIMA JACOB, PP

¶25

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING ON 13.03.2024, ALONG WITH BAIL APPL..10485/2023, THE COURT ON 15.3.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

-3-

¶27

BA Nos.10485 of 2023 & 689 of 2024

¶28

MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., J.

¶29

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

¶30

BA Nos.10485 of 2023 & 689 of 2024

¶31

¶32

Dated this the 15^th day of March, 2024

¶33

O R D E R

¶34

BA No.10485/2023 is filed by the third accused, while BA No.689/2024 is filed by the fourth accused in Crime No. 399/2023 of Chavara Police Station, Kollam district, for having committed offences punishable under Sections 22(c), 20(b)(ii)(A) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,1985 under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking regular bail.

¶35

The allegation against the petitioner is that on 08.03.2023 at around 1.30 a.m., at Chavara, the accused were found in possession of 207.9 grams of MDMA and 34.6 grams of Ganja, which they were found transporting from Bangalore, and thus committed the above offences.

¶36

The petitioner in BA No.689/2024 submits that the seizure was from accused Nos.1 and 3 and thereafter that A4 and A5 were implicated in the Crime. Learned counsel also argues that as far as A4 is concerned,

¶37

-4-

¶38

BA Nos.10485 of 2023 & 689 of 2024

¶39

except for transactions between him and A5, there are no other transactions with A1 to A3. It is pointed out that A5 was enlarged on bail by this Court in BA No.8572/2023 dated 10.11.2023 therefore, the fourth accused may also be enlarged on bail.

¶40

The Learned Public Prosecutor opposing the bail application submits that the call data records clearly showed several calls between A1 and A4 during the relevant period and also transactions between A5 and A4.

¶41

A report has been filed by the Prosecutor stating that A4, who studied at Bangalore, used to hand over the MDMA regularly to A1 after receiving money through UPI transactions done by A5 and that there were transactions amounting to Rs.30,000/- with A5. The charge sheet against A1, A2, A3 and A5 was submitted on 26.08.2023, and the charge sheet against A4 was submitted on 18.01.2024 and the case is now under trial as SC No.1168/2023. It is also submitted that a report has been submitted to the Sessions Court, Kollam, for conducting custodial trial and is under consideration by the said court.

¶42

Learned counsel for the petitioner refuting the above allegations submits that no details of any calls with A1 find a place in the final report, and as such, the report of the Prosecutor cannot be relied on as the other

¶43

-5-

¶44

BA Nos.10485 of 2023 & 689 of 2024

¶45

material is the confession of the co-accused which also cannot be accepted going by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Tofan Singh vs The State Of Tamil Nadu (AIR 2020 SC 5592)

¶46

With respect to BA No.10485/2023, learned counsel submits that he was only a driver of the vehicle in which A1 to A3 travelled, and there was no seizure from him.

¶47

Learned prosecutor submitted that A1 to A3 travelled to Bangalore to procure the contraband, there are enough materials to show his involvement, and the quantity of contraband involved 207.9 grams of MDMA and 34.6 grams of Ganja which showed that they were dealing in different types of contraband. It is submitted that Section 37 of the NDPS Act applies, and the petitioners are not entitled to bail.

¶48

Having considered the rival submissions, it is to be noticed that A5 in the above case was granted bail, clearly finding that apart from the confession there was no material to connect the said accused except the monetary transaction with A1 whose sister A5 was going to marry and it is on account of the relationship between A1 and A5 that the amounts were being transferred, and it was under the said circumstances, this Court granted bail relying on the judgment in State by (NCB) Bengaluru and others v. Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta and others [2022 (1) KHC 853].

¶49

-6-

¶50

BA Nos.10485 of 2023 & 689 of 2024

¶51

The accused in the instant case cannot claim parity with A1 for the reason stated above it is only on account of the relationship between A1 and A5, and in the absence of other proof, bail was granted.

¶52

In the instant case, the Public Prosecutor points out that as far as A3 is concerned, they have travelled along with A1 and A2, and contraband was seized from the vehicle which was driven by A3, and there was proof of they have travelled together. As far as A4 is concerned, apart from the monetary transaction, it is seen that there are several calls between him and A1 and the details in the CDR are also made available. Of course, these are all materials to be proved at the time of trial. However, taking note of the involvement of the petitioners, the report filed by the Prosecutor, the final report and also considering the rigour under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, I do not think that it is a fit case to grant bail to the accused.

¶53

Accordingly, the bail applications are rejected.

¶54

Sd/-

¶55

MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.

JUDGE

dlk/13.3.2024

-7-

BA Nos.10485 of 2023 & 689 of 2024

¶60

APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 689/2024

¶61

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES

¶62

ANNEXURE 1	ORDER DATED ON HIGH COUR	28-11-2023 IN BAIL APPL.10029/2023 T
ANNEXURE-II	A TRUE COPY 399/2023 OF DISTRICT	OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO. CHAVARA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM
ANNEXURE-III	A TRUE COPY NO. 8572/202	OF THE ORDER DATED 10.11.2023 IN BA 3

¶63

-8-

¶64

BA Nos.10485 of 2023 & 689 of 2024

¶65

APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 10485/2023

¶66

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES

¶67

ANNEXURE 1	A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 399/2023 OF CHAVARA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM
ANNEXURE 2	A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 7/11/2023 THUS PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE II, KOLLAM
ANNEXURE 3	A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10/11/2023 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN B.A. NO. 8572/2023
ANNEXURE 4	TRUE COPY OF THE SEIZURE MAHAZAR DATED 8/3/2023

Videep, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Videep, 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

Sheeba T.J Vs State of Kerala

Nagesh Kumar.B.R., Vs Kerala Veterinary and Animal Sciences University

A.Shakeela, Vs State of Kerala

G.Balasubramanian Vs University of Calicut

Dr.Pavneez Abdul Rahman Vs the State of Kerala

Jeela. N Vs State of Kerala