Kerala High Court
Mahesh vs State Of Kerala on 15 December, 2020
Author: Ashok Menon
Bench: Ashok Menon
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON
TUESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2020 / 24TH AGRAHAYANA, 1942
Bail Appl..No.7994 OF 2020
CRIME NO.14/2020 OF ANGAL EXCISE RANGE OFFICE , Kollam
PETITIONER/S:
MAHESH
AGED 37 YEARS
VADAKKANTE PARAMBU VEEDU , THOTTAPALLY P.O.,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT
689001
BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW JAMES
RESPONDENT/S:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA 682031
R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
R1 BY ADDL.DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION
OTHER PRESENT:
SMT.K.K.SHEEBA -PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
15.12.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Bail Appl..No.7994 OF 2020 2
O R D E R
Dated this the 15th day of December 2020 Application for regular bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. The applicant is the 3rd accused in Crime No.14/2020 of Angal Excise Range Office, Kollam for having allegedly committed offences punishable under Sections 22(c) and 28 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 13.08.2020 at about 5.45 p.m., the Excise Circle Inspector attached to the Aryankavu Excise Check post, while on patrol duty, saw the the 1st accused driving a lorry bearing registration No. TN-92-C 3736 through Punalur-Chenkotta National Highway. The lorry was intercepted and on search, it was found containing 864 numbers of Spasmo Proxyvon branded as 'Tramadol' a narcotic drug. The seizure was effected. The 1st accused was arrested. During the course of investigation, the 3rd accused was also implicated, since there was specific evidence of his being in contact with other three accused. There is also materials collected by the investigating officer to indicate that he had collected the contraband. Statements were recorded under Section 67 of the Bail Appl..No.7994 OF 2020 3 NDPS Act.
3. The applicant states that he is innocent and the allegations are not true. Apart from the statements recorded under Section 67 of NDPS Act, there is no other material to enter into a finding regarding the complicity. Hence, he is entitled to bail and the embargo under Section 37 of the NDPS Act will not be attracted in this case.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has no criminal antecedents, to which, the learned Public Prosecutor agrees. The prosecution case rests not solely on the statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, there are other materials which have been collected. Whether those materials are good enough to enter into a conviction of the applicant, is a matter to be decided by the trial court, consequent to the trial. Bail court is not expected to go into the details of the materials collected and its evidentiary value. Hence, I find that the applicant is not entitled to bail in view of the specific embargo under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. I find support in the latest decision of the Honourable Supreme Court State of Kerala Etc. v. Rajesh Etc. [2020 (1) KHC 557], wherein it has been held that the embargo under Section 37 of NDPS Act Bail Appl..No.7994 OF 2020 4 cannot be overlooked by the court while considering the application for bail, in a case where the accused is allegedly involved in commercial quantity of drugs. The final report has been filed and the trial court is directed to expedite the matter.
The application is dismissed.
Sd/-
ASHOK MENON JUDGE rmm