Navas T.V vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 20120 Ker

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                         PRESENT
                         THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARIPAL
              FRIDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 2ND ASWINA, 1943
                               BAIL APPL. NO. 6974 OF 2021
       (IN CRIME NO. 11 OF 2021 BEFORE THE TIRUR EXCISE OFFICE, MALAPPURAM)
     AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN Bail Appl. 4928/2021 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
                                     ERNAKULAM
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:


             NAVAS T.V
             AGED 31 YEARS
             S/O. MOHAMMED KUTTY T. V., THOTTIVALAPPIL HOUSE, ASUPATHRIPADI,
             MUTTANUR P. O., PIN - 676561, PURATHUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

             BY ADVS.
             JAMSHEED HAFIZ
             K.K.NESNA



RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:


             STATE OF KERALA
             REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
             ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 031.



             SR.PP - SRI. NOUSHAD




      THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.09.2021, THE COURT ON
THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 BAIL APPL. NO. 6974 OF 2021
                                   2

                               ORDER

This is an application filed under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C., by

the sole accused in Crime No. 11 of 2021 of Tirur Excise Range,

which was registered on 02.06.2021 after seizing commercial quantity

of ganja from room No. XV/338-11 of Tripangode Panchayath. The

specific case of the prosecution is that when the Excise officials

conducted search of the said room, huge quantity of ganja was found

stored there. Thus the crime was registered and during the course of

investigation, the petitioner moved this Court B.A.No. 4928 of 2021,

by Annexure-1 order dated 30.06.2021, that application was

dismissed. Now the petitioner has again moved this application for

anticipatory bail.

2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the

learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

3. According to the learned counsel, actually it is not a lodge but

a private house, where there cannot be any register having been

maintained proving the details of occupation. The petitioner does not

have any connection with the contraband allegedly seized from the BAIL APPL. NO. 6974 OF 2021

room, that he has no criminal antecedents to his credit. According to

the learned counsel, the other accused has already been arrested and

that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not warranted.

4. The learned Senior Public Prosecutor has strongly opposed the

application. According to him, actually 40.5 kilograms of ganja was

seized from the room which was leased out to the petitioner. He was

paying monthly rent of Rs.3,000/- for the same; he had also given rent

advance and also handed over his driving licence to the landlord. The

learned Senior Public Prosecutor does not have instruction that there is

another accused that anyone else has been arrested for the case.

5. It is evident from the words of the learned Senior Public

Prosecutor that 40.5 kilograms of ganja was seized from the room; at

this juncture whether it is part of a lodge or part of a residential house

does not have much importance. The most vital question is whether

the room was in the exclusive occupation of the petitioner. There are

reasons to think that the room was under the lock and key of the

petitioner. It was broke opened and 40.5 kilograms of ganja was

seized from the same. There are also materials to say that the

petitioner was the tenant of the room and was in exclusive occupation. BAIL APPL. NO. 6974 OF 2021

When so much quantity of ganja was seized from such premises,

petitioner owes and explanation for the same. But he has no

explanations. Therefore, the accusing fingers point against the

petitioner alone.

6. In the nature of the allegations which are very grave, I am not

inclined to grant any relief to the petitioner. There are also no

subsequent development justifying him to move the court a second

application under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.

The application is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.

Dismissed.

Sd/-

K.HARIPAL JUDGE RMV/24/09/2021