Kerala High Court
Unknown vs By Advs.Sri.Krishnadas P. Nair on 20 June, 2018
Author: V Raja Vijayaraghavan
Bench: V Raja Vijayaraghavan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE 2018 / 30TH JYAISHTA, 1940
Bail Appl..No. 3749 of 2018
CRIME NO. 43/2018 OF AREACODE POLICE STATION , MALAPPURAM
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED.
BALAJI @ ILANKESWARANRTHIK
AGED 43 YEARS, S/O MOORTHI, H.NO.659, NADAVAKKARE,
NEAR SARVESWARA TEMPLE, MAHESWARAPURAM PO,
KUMBAKONAM,
THANCHAVOOR DISTRICT, TAMILNADU, PIN-612402.
BY ADVS.SRI.KRISHNADAS P. NAIR
SMT.K.L.SREEKALA
SRI.HARIDAS P.NAIR
SRI.M.A.VINOD
SRI.M.RAJESH KUMAR
SMT.B.SABITHA (DESOM)
RESPONDENT(S):
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
R BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.ANAS K.A
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20-06-2018,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
AD
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, J
--------------------------------------------
B.A No.3749 of 2018
---------------------------------------------
Dated this the 20th day of June, 2018
ORDER
1. This application is filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.
2. The applicant herein is the accused in Crime No.43 of 2018 of Areakode Police Station, registered under Sections 22(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
3. The prosecution allegation is that on 21.02.2018 at 4.00 p.m., the applicant herein was intercepted and a search was conducted after complying with all statutory formalities. It is alleged that he was having in his possession 125 gms of Methylenedioxyamphetamine (MDA), a psychedelic drug of the amphetamine family that is used mainly as a recreational drug.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that the applicant is innocent. The mandatory formalities that are to be complied with have been breached by the detecting officer. According to the learned counsel, the applicant has been in custody from 21.02.2018 onwards and B.A No.3749 of 2018 2 his further detention is clearly uncalled for. It is further submitted that there are discrepancies in the FIR with regard to the time at which the information was received in the police station and this would affect the credibility of the prosecution version itself.
5. The learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer with much vehemence. It was submitted that commercial quantity of MDA has been seized and the investigation conducted till date clearly points to his involvement. It is submitted that the applicant herein is the main supplier of narcotics in the State and the network of dealers, suppliers and the source of drugs are yet to be unearthed. It is further urged that the parameters laid down in Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985 will have to be satisfied as the quantity seized is commercial in nature. Highlighting the deleterious effects and deadly impact of the substance, it is submitted that the legislature has included Section 37 in the Statute Book to deter such nefarious activities. The learned Public Prosecutor referred to the decisions of the Apex Court in Union of India (UOI) v. Shri Shiv Shanker Kesari [(2007) 7 SCC 798] and Union of India v. Ram Samujh and Another [(1999) 9 SCC 429] to support his B.A No.3749 of 2018 3 contentions.
6. I have considered the submissions advanced and have gone through the materials on record.
7. The jurisdiction of the court to grant bail is circumscribed by the provision of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Bail can be granted in a case where there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. It is the mandate of the legislature which is required to be followed. The expression used in Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the Act is b