Kerala High Court
Umesh Thappa vs State Of Kerala on 27 September, 2019
Author: Mary Joseph
Bench: Mary Joseph
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH
FRIDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2019 / 5TH ASWINA, 1941
Crl.MC.No.6697 OF 2019(F)
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CMP No.2803/19 IN SC 454/2019
DATED 29-08-2019 OF COURT OF SESSIONS, PALAKKAD
CRIME NO.109/2018 OF Palakkad Excise Range Office, Palakkad
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
UMESH THAPPA
AGED 21/18,
S/O RUPESH THAPPA, PATRIMAN LANE, LANKAPPARA
TEA GARDEN, BIRPARA, ALI PURDU-AR DISTRICT,
WEST BENGAL STATE.
BY ADVS.SRI.K.ANAND
SRI.BENNY ANTONY PAREL
SRI.T.M.MUHAMED HAFEES
RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.
2 EXCISE INSPECTOR,
EXCISE RANGE OFFICE, PALAKKAD-678 001.
OTHER PRESENT:
PP C.K.PRASAD
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 27.09.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No.6697 OF 2019(F)
2
ORDER
Dated this the 27th day of September 2019 The petition on hand is filed seeking to modify condition No.1 in Annexure A1 order passed by Additional Sessions Judge-II, Palakkad in Crl.M.C No.3524/2018 in Crime No.109/2018. Annexure A1 order was passed by the court aforesaid in an application filed by the petitioner seeking regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The offence alleged against the petitioner is one punishable under Section 22(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'NDPS Act').
2. As per the allegations, the petitioner was found by the Excise Inspector and party in possession of 164 numbers of Spasmo-Proxyvan Plus tablets weighing 63.14 grams, in front of Walayar Excise Check Post. The petitioner was caught red handed and is now in judicial custody. In the aforesaid circumstances, application seeking bail was moved by him and an order granting bail was obtained.
3. In the order granting bail, the Court concerned has imposed four conditions, among which the first one was that the Crl.MC.No.6697 OF 2019(F) 3 petitioner shall execute 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 Court. The petitioner is aggrieved by the aforesaid condition and seeks to modify the same by directing him to deposit cash worth Rs.50,000/- each for two solvent sureties. According to him, he being a native of West Bengal is unable to procure solvent sureties for execution of bond as stipulated in condition No.1 in the bail order.
4. The petitioner had already approached Court of Sessions, Palakkad seeking for a modification of condition No.1 as sought in the petition on hand now but, by Annexure A2 order the prayer was declined by that court. The Court has observed in the order that the offence involved is of gravity and the petitioner must realise the gravity of the offence allegedly committed by him and that it is committed against the society as a whole. The court below has also observed that the offences of the nature are increasing day by day and it is highly necessary to curb the spreading of narcotic and psychotropic substances in the society. Accordingly, the Court has found condition No.1 in the bail order as one, not harsh and is not liable to be substituted. Crl.MC.No.6697 OF 2019(F) 4
5. Condition No.1 is purely meant for procuring the co-operation of the petitioner in future proceedings of the prosecution. For securing the same, execution of bond with solvent sureties is the only way out.
6. The prayer of the petitioner is to substitute direction to execute bond with solvent sureties with cash deposit of Rs.50,000/- by the petitioner himself. With the substitution of condition No.1, the prosecution will not be able to secure the presence of the petitioner for future proceedings. Condition No.1 imposed in the bail order cannot be said to be a harsh one and without securing compliance thereof, prosecution will not be able to be completed successfully. Therefore, this Court is declined to substitute condition No.1 with the condition now proposed by the petitioner.
In the result, the Crl.M.C stands dismissed.
Sd/-
MARY JOSEPH JUDGE ttb Crl.MC.No.6697 OF 2019(F) 5 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRL MC 3524/2018.
ANNEXURE A2 ORIGINAL ORDER IN CRL.MP 2803/2019 IN S.C.NO.454/2019.
/TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JUDGE