Kerala High Court
Bibin Ravi vs The State Of Kerala on 13 August, 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
THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 22ND SRAVANA, 1942
Bail Appl..No.1689 OF 2020
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMP 592/2020 OF DISTRICT COURT&
SESSIONS COURT,PATHANAMTHITTA
CRIME NO.52/2020 OF KEEZHVAIPUR POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
BIBIN RAVI
AGED 20 YEARS
S/O RAVI, KADAMANKULATH HOUSE,
KADAMANKULAM MURI,
KALLOOPPARA VIILAGE,
THIRUVALLA TALUK,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-689 583.
BY ADVS.
SRI.MANU RAMACHANDRAN
SRI.M.KIRANLAL
SRI.T.S.SARATH
SRI.R.RAJESH (VARKALA)
SHRI.SAMEER M NAIR
RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT/STATE:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA
THROUGH REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA-682 031.
2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
POLICE STATION OF KEZZHVAIPUR,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-689 587.
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI.AJITH MURALI, PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
13.08.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A.No. 1689 of 2020
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
===================
B.A.No. 1689 of 2020
===================
Dated this the 13th day of August, 2020
ORDER
This Bail Application filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) was heard through Video Conference.
2. The petitioner is the 2nd accused in Crime No.52 of 2020 of Keezhvaipur Police Station, Pathanamthitta District. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(A) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and Section 77 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
3. The prosecution case is that, the petitioner and the other accused used to conduct sale of ganja to children and others at Kadamankulam in Kallooppara village. The B.A.No. 1689 of 2020 3 prosecution case is that on 15.01.2020 at 06.50 p.m., accused Nos. 1 & 2 in this case found engaged in selling ganja. When the Police party came there, the 1 st accused was arrested and the 2nd accused left the place in a motorbike. It is also alleged by prosecution that subsequently, a small quantity of ganja is seized from the house of the petitioner herein.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, even if, the entire allegations are accepted. No offence is made out in this petition. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the quantity of ganja seized from the petitioner is only a small quantity. The learned counsel also submitted that, Section 77 of the Juvenile Justice Act alone is non bailable offence in this case. The learned counsel submitted that, there is no ingredients to attract the offence under Section 77 of the Juvenile Justice Act. The learned counsel read out the B.A.No. 1689 of 2020 4 relevant portion of the Mahazar prepared at the time of seizure. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, he is ready to abide any conditions, if this Court grants him bail.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the bail application. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that, in the light of the inclusion of Section 77 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, the offences are non bailable. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that, the petitioner is doing business of selling ganja to children. The petitioner is not entitle orders under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.
7. After hearing both sides, I think this is not a fit case, in which orders under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. can be issued. The allegation against the petitioner is very serious. The petitioner is conducting sale of ganja to children. A perusal of the Mahazar will show that, two persons were selling ganja to a child and at that time, the police detected the offence. The petitioner has got a case B.A.No. 1689 of 2020 5 that he is not the other person. The petitioner also submitted that the number of the motorbikes is also mentioned in the Mahazar. These are all matters to be investigated by the Investigating Officer. This Court cannot consider these aspects for considering an application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C
8. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I seen no reason to issue any orders under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. in this case.
9. Moreover, the jurisdiction to grant bail under Sec.438 Cr.P.C has to be exercised on the well settled principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement (AIR 2019 SC 4198). The Anticipatory Bail is not to be granted as a matter of rule and it has to be granted only when court is convinced that, exceptional circumstances exists to resort to the extraordinary jurisdiction.
10. It is true that, there is no hard and fast rule regarding grant or refusal to grant anticipatory bail. Each B.A.No. 1689 of 2020 6 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 under Sec.438 Cr.P.C. Hence this Bail Application is dismissed.
(Sd/-) P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE LU