Kerala High Court
M.Karuppasamy vs State Of Kerala on 16 November, 2020
Author: Ashok Menon
Bench: Ashok Menon
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON
MONDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 25TH KARTHIKA, 1942
Bail Appl..No.7103 OF 2020
CRIME NO.14/2020 OF ANCHAL EXCISE RANGE OFFICE, Kollam
PETITIONER/S:
M.KARUPPASAMY
AGED 40 YEARS
S/O K.MURUKAN,
DOOR NO.9/6 5C-2, GURUSWAMY STREET,
SCHENCOTTAI, TENKASI DISTRICT-627809
BY ADV. SRI.MANOJ RAMASWAMY
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM
682031
2 THE EXCISE INSPECTOR
ANCHAL EXCISE RANGE OFFICE,
ANCHAL, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691305
R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
SRI.C.N.PRABHAKARAN SR PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
16.11.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Bail Appl..No.7103 OF 2020
2
ORDER
Dated this the 16th day of November 2020 Application for regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
Applicant is the 4th accused in Crime No.14/2020 of Anchal Excise Range, Kollam, for having allegedly committed offences punishable under Sections 22(C) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 13.08.2020, the officials at the Aryankavu Excise Check Post intercepted a lorry bearing Reg.No.TN 92/C/37/36 which was being driven by the 1st accused. On examination of the vehicle, 864 tablets of Spasmoproxyvon, a psychotropic substance containing Tramadol was seized from the 1st accused and he was arrested immediately and the crime registered. During his interrogation, he revealed the involvement of the applicant and the other accused, and other investigation. The Bail Appl..No.7103 OF 2020 3 applicant was arrested on 17.09.2020 and remanded to judicial custody. He had applied for bail before the Sessions court, Kollam and the same was dismissed by that court vide Annexure A1 order. He has therefore approached this Court for indulgence.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned Public Prosecutor.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that, apart from the confession statement allegedly given by the 1st accused, there is no material to implicate the applicant or connecting to the crime. He has no other criminal antecedents, therefore he may be granted bail.
5. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that, considering the gravity of the offence and the embargo under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail. The quantity involved is commercial.
6. After having heard the arguments raised by Bail Appl..No.7103 OF 2020 4 both sides, I do agree with the learned counsel for the applicant that the confession statement alone is not sufficient to proceed against the applicant. But the learned Public Prosecutor has pointed out that apart from the confession statement of the 1st accused, there are materials to show that the applicant is involved. He has been constant touch with the 1st accused over the phone. The records regarding the phone calls made by the applicant is collected by the prosecution. That apart, there is also evidence regarding the handing over of the vehicle to the 1st accused for the purpose of transporting narcotic drugs. The investigation is still in a nascent stage and further evidence will have to be collected against the applicant. Under the circumstances, it is prayed by the learned Public Prosecutor that the applicant may not be released on bail solely for the reason that he has been implicated on the basis of a confession statement.
Bail Appl..No.7103 OF 2020 5 After having considered the arguments advanced by both sides anxiously, I find that the applicant though implicated initially on the basis of a confession statement given by the 1st accused. The prosecution has not rested with that alone. It has conducted investigation and unraveled other materials to support the confession statement. Hence, the prosecution will have to be given more time to collect materials to implicate the applicate. Ultimately during the trial, if there is no material worthwhile the applicant is entitled to acquittal, but for the granting of bail, the embargo under Section 37 of the NDPS Act would come into play and the applicant is not entitled to bail.
The application is therefore dismissed.
Sd/-
ASHOK MENON JUDGE SPK