Kerala High Court
Sasikumar @ Ajayan vs State Of Kerala on 10 November, 2016
Author: P.Ubaid
Bench: P.Ubaid
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID
THURSDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/19TH KARTHIKA, 1938
Bail Appl..No. 7854 of 2016
---------------------------
CRIME NO. 8/2016 OF PAMPADY EXCISE RANGE OFFICE , KOTTAYAM
-------------
PETITIONER(S)/1ST ACCUSED:
-------------------------
SASIKUMAR @ AJAYAN, AGED 40 YEARS,
S/O.SASEENDRAN, CHIRAKKAROTTU HOUSE,
POOVATHUMMOODU BAGAOM,
THIRUVANCHOOR P.O., KOTTAYAM.
BY ADVS.SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)
SRI.NANDAGOPAL S.KURUP
RESPONDENTS/DEFACTO-COMPLAINANT:
--------------------------------
STATE OF KERALA,
THROUGH THE EXCISE INSPECTOR,
PAMBADY EXCISE RANGE OFFICE,
KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.SAJJU. S.
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
10-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
PJ
P.UBAID, J.
~~~~~~~~~~
B.A No.7854 of 2016
~~~~~~~~~~~
Dated this the 10th November, 2016
O R D E R
The petitioner herein seeks pre arrest bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the apprehension of arrest and custodial harassment in connection with Crime No.8 of 2016 of the Pambady Excise Range registered under Sections 20 (b) (ii) (B) of the N.D.P.S. Act He is the 1st accused in the crime.
2. Seizure of 2.015 kgs of Ganja is the subject matter of this crime. The second accused is the mother of the 1st accused. The mother was arrested by the Police, and she is now on regular bail. The petitioner, the son, now seeks pre-arrest bail. It is submitted that he is involved as accused in two other crimes under the N.D.P.S. Act.
3. On hearing both sides, and on a perusal of the materials including the case diary and the report of the investigating officer, I find that some more things remain to be done by the police as part of investigation, and some B.A No.7854 of 2016 2 more witnesses remain to be questioned. I find that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is absolutely necessary as part of investigation in this case, and I find that the accused will influence or intimidate the witnesses if he is granted pre arrest bail. However, if the petitioner so opts, he can surrender before the investigating officer or before the court below having jurisdiction. After necessary interrogation, the request for regular bail can well be considered by the court below having jurisdiction. In the particular facts and circumstances of the case including the seriousness and gravity of the offence alleged, and also the stage of investigation, I find that this is not a fit case where the discretionary relief of pre arrest bail can be granted.
In the result, this application for anticipatory bail is dismissed.
Sd/-
P.UBAID
JUDGE
ma
/True copy/ P.S to Judge