Kerala High Court
Sreeraj vs The State Of Kerala on 29 July, 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
WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JULY 2020 / 7TH SRAVANA, 1942
Bail Appl..No.3335 OF 2020
AGAINST THE ORDER IN CRMP 333/2020 OF SPECIAL COURT (ATROCITIES
AGAINST SC/ST), MANJERI
CRIME NO.12/2020 OF Malappuram Excise Range Office , Malappuram
PETITIONER:
SREERAJ
AGED 25 YEARS
S/O. GANGADHARAN, VALIYAVALAPPIL HOUSE, NEDUVA,
CHETTIPARY, PARAPPANANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.K.RAKESH
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM,KOCHI 682 031.
2 THE EXCISE INSPECTOR,
EXCISE RANGE, NILAMBUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-679
329
SRI.AJITH MURALI, PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
29.07.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A.No.3335 of 2020 2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
-----------------------------------
B.A.No.3335 of 2020
-----------------------------------
Dated this the 29th day of July, 2020
ORDER
This Bail Application is 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.
4. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor.
B.A.No.3335 of 2020 3
5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in custody from 19.2.2020. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the 2 nd accused in this case is already released on bail by the Sessions Court and he also may be given the same benefit. According to the counsel, even if the entire prosecution case is accepted, no offence is made out against the petitioner.
6. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. The Public Prosecutor submitted that eventhough the co-accused was released on bail by the Sessions Court, the investigating officer is taking steps to cancel the bail order. The Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the bail application. The Public Prosecutor submitted that commercial quantity is seized from the petitioner.
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.
8. I considered the bail application of the petitioner earlier and as per order dated 5.5.2020 in B.A.No.2055 of 2020 dismissed the bail application. There is no change of B.A.No.3335 of 2020 4 circumstances after 5.5.2020. Therefore, this bail application is dismissed.
9. 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.
(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 B.A.No.3335 of 2020 5 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 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