Kerala High Court
Sreeraj vs State Of Kerala on 2 November, 2020
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
MONDAY, THE 02ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 11TH KARTHIKA, 1942
Bail Appl..No.6985 OF 2020
CRIME NO.12/2020 OF Nilambur Excise Range Office , Malappuram
PETITIONER:
SREERAJ
AGED 22 YEARS
SON OF GANGADHARAN, VALIYAVALAPPIL HOUSE, NEDUVA,
CHETTIPADY,
PARAPPANANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT
PIN-676 319
BY ADV. SRI.A.ARUNKUMAR
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM,
PIN-682031
SRI.RENJITH.T.R., PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
02.11.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A.No. 6985 of 2020 2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
B.A.No. 6985 of 2020
-------------------------------
Dated this the 2nd day of November, 2020
ORDER
This Bail Application filed under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code was heard through Video Conference.
2. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.12 of 2020 of Nilambur Excise Range, Malappuram. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offence punishable under Sections 22(c), 20(b)(ii)A, 25 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act).
3. The prosecution case is that the petitioner was found in possession of 56.64 gm of Ganja, 490 mg of LSD, 4.122 gm of MDMA crystals and 21.22 gm of MDMA pills on a motorbike at Anamari desom, Vazhikkadavu. The petitioner and the other accused were arrested on 19.2.2020.
B.A.No. 6985 of 2020 3
4. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor.
5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in custody from 19.2.2020 onwards. The counsel submitted that the petitioner is suffering from some illness and the jail authorities are not giving proper treatment. The counsel submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide any conditions, if this Court grant him bail. The counsel also submitted that the 2nd accused in this case is already released on bail
6. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. The Public Prosecutor submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is that he was in possession of commercial quantity of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances. The Public Prosecutor submitted that as far as the 2 nd accused is concerned, an application is already filed before this Court to cancel the bail. The Public Prosecutor submitted that if there is any physical illness to the petitioner, the jail authorities will do the B.A.No. 6985 of 2020 4 needful, if the petitioner make appropriate request to the jail authorities or to the trial court.
7. After hearing both sides, I think this is not a fit case in which the petitioner can be released on bail at this stage. The allegations against the petitioner are very serious. This Court dismissed the bail application of the petitioner as per Annexure-A2 and Annexure-A3 orders. This is the third bail application. The only circumstance pointed out by the counsel for the petitioner is that the final report is filed. That is not a reason to grant bail to the petitioner. I see no change of circumstance to grant him bail. Therefore, this bail application is dismissed.
8. Moreover, the jurisdiction to grant bail has to be exercised on the well settled principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chidambaram P v Central Bureau of Investigation (AIR 2019 SC 5272). The apex court held that, the following factors are to the taken into consideration while considering the application for bail. B.A.No. 6985 of 2020 5
(i) the nature of accusation and the severity of the punishment in the case of conviction and the nature of the materials relied upon by the prosecution;
(ii) reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses or apprehension of threat to the complainant or the witnesses;
(iii) reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the time of trial or the likelihood of his abscondence;
(iv) character behaviour and standing of the accused and the circumstances which are peculiar to the accused;
(v) larger interest of the public or the State and similar other considerations.
It is true that there is no hard and fast rule regarding grant or refusal to grant bail. Each case has to be decided on the basis of the facts and circumstances of that case. In the B.A.No. 6985 of 2020 6 light of the general principles laid down in the above judgment and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I am of the opinion that this is not a fit case in which the petitioner can be released on bail. Hence this Bail Application is dismissed.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, JUDGE cms