Kerala High Court
Jabir Mullali vs The Intelligence Officer on 24 January, 2020
Author: V Shircy
Bench: V Shircy
B.A.No.60/2020 1
(IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V.
FRIDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 4TH MAGHA, 1941
Bail Appl..No.60 OF 2020
(O.R.No.4/2019 of NCB, Sub zone, Cochin)
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
JABIR MULLALI
AGED 23 YEARS
S/O. ABDUL AZEES, MULLALI HOUSE PONNANKAI,
AREEKKARA, KUNHIPALLI, KOTTALI P.O. KANNUR
DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN
SRI.T.R.TARIN
RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND STATE :
THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER
NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU, SUB ZONE, COCHIN 682 018,
REPRESENTED BY THE SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH
COURT OF KERALA, KOCHI 31.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.MVS.NAMBOOTHIRY
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
24.01.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A.No.60/2020 2
ORDER
Application for regular bail.
2. The petitioner is the accused in O.R.No.4/2019 of the Narcotics Control Bureau, Kochi registered for the offences punishable under Sections 8(C) read with 22(C), 23(C), 28 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.
3. The petitioner has been in custody since 2.9.2019.
4. The crux of the allegation is as follows:
On 2.9.2019 the Narcotics Control Bureau received an information from CISF control room of Calicut International Airport that a passenger while trying to board Qutar Air Ways Flight No. QR 537, was found with certain items akin to narcotic drug in his hand baggage and he was detained in the airport. The NCB officers immediately rushed to the airport and the suspect passenger was found with CISF officials. When the NCB B.A.No.60/2020 3 officials asked him, he disclosed his name as Jabir Mullali. CISF officials informed that two packets wrapped with brown colour cello tapes covered in black colour polythene cover was found in the hand baggage of him in security check and so he was detained. The NCB officials examined it and found as Methamphetamine, a psychotropic substance having a weight of 490 gms. The same was seized and he was arrested. The petitioner was about to fly in Qutar Airways with the contraband, thereby he committed the aforesaid offences .
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no contraband was detected from his possession and the arrest and the search effected by the NCB officers are illegal and they have not complied with the statutory requirements. In fact, the Superintendent of CISF had handed over the contraband to the intelligence officer of NCB and it was not detected from the possession of the petitioner so as to detain him in custody.
6. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for NCB B.A.No.60/2020 4 contended that they reached the airport on getting information from CISF that some suspicious items akin to narcotic drugs were detected from the hand baggage of a passenger who was about to fly to Qatar and the NCB officials, after interrogation of the suspect passenger examined the packets found in his hand baggage in the presence of CISF officials and the contraband was tested with the standard testing kit which gave positive result of the presence of Methamphetamine, a psychotropic substance and hence, after complying with all the requisite formalities, seized the contraband in the presence of witnesses and thus the case was registered against him. The learned counsel for NCB has also submitted the CD file for perusal.
7. The records would reveal that Methamphetamine, a prohibited psychotropic substance was detected from the petitioner by the NCB officials. CISF are not authorized officers empowered under the NDPS Act. They are a force, works to carry out the security control of the Air Port. CISF are empowered B.A.No.60/2020 5 and authorized to carry out the security control of the airport. This force as part of security control, screen every person, their baggage including frisking of every passenger before permitting one to fly. The petitioner was detained in the security area as suspicious items were found in his hand baggage and immediately the officials of NCB reached the spot on information received and search was conducted in the presence of officials of CISF, as contemplated under the provisions of the NDPS Act after test by using standard kit. The copy of the Mahazar made available by the learned counsel for NCB prima facie reveals that the provisions of the search and seizure were conducted as per the procedure laid down under the NDPS Act. Whether the search conducted and seizure effected are strictly as mandated by the provisions of NDPS Act, are larger issues to be decided by the trial court after a full fledged trial of the case. At this stage, the glaring circumstances indicate that there is a case against the petitioner. It is to be noted that the quantity of the B.A.No.60/2020 6 contraband involved is commercial quantity. As the contraband involved is commercial quantity, mandate of Section 37 of the Act has to be strictly followed which says that when an application is opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor, only if the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accused is not guilty of the accusation alleged and that he will not commit any offence while on bail can be granted bail. Such a restriction has been imposed by this Act with the intention to crub these type of illegal activities. The Act was implemented with stringent provisions to control and regulate operation of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances as well to put an end to illicit traffic of narcotic drugs for the welfare of the society. Trafficking of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances are a menace to the society as a large number of youngsters are dragged to the habit of using it thereby addicted to it and spoil their life. So stringent conditions are imposed in seizure and arrest of the accused as well release of the accused on bail. B.A.No.60/2020 7 When there are no reasonable grounds to infer that he is innocent and no offence has been committed in contravention of the provisions of this Act, it cannot be taken lightly considering the period of detention undergone by the accused in judicial custody. If that be so ,that will be result as a failure to achieve the objectives of NDPS Act. So the argument of the learned counsel that the search, arrest or seizure of the articles are not as per the provisions of the Act , appears to be without merits as the recovery was a chance recovery and the CISF are not authorised officers to seize or arrest the petitioner then and there. Hence, the NCB was informed without any delay and the huge quantity of the contraband article was detected by the officer from the handbag of the petitioner who was about to go to board a flight to Doha.
Therefore, I find absolutely no reasonable ground to accept the argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner highlighting the period of detention and enlarge him on bail as B.A.No.60/2020 8 investigation is only half way through.
Dismissed.
Sd/-
Shircy V Judge smm