Kerala High Court
Nahas vs State Of Kerala on 27 July, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM
WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 5TH SRAVANA, 1944
BAIL APPL. NO. 1912 OF 2022
Crime No.14 of 2020 of Excise Range Office, Anchal
S.C.No.1156 of 2020 on the file of the Additional Sessions
Court, Kollam
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2:
NAHAS
AGED 36 YEARS, S/O.THAJUDHEEN
VALLAKADAVIL HOUSE,
VELLAKINAR WARD,
ALAPPUZHA PADINJARE VILLAGE,
AMBALAPPUZHA THALUK,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
D.VIMAL DEV
YEDU KRISHNAN R.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
KOCHI-31
BY ADVS.
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
ADDL.DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION(AG-11)
OTHER PRESENT:
PP - SRI. K.A.ANAS
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
27.07.2022, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..2603/2022, THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
BA Nos.1912 & 2603 of 2022 2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM
WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 5TH SRAVANA, 1944
BAIL APPL. NO. 2603 OF 2022
ACRIME NO.14 OF ANCHAL EXCISE RANGE OFFICE, KOLLAM
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.4:
KARUPPU SWAMY
AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.MURUGAN
RESIDING AT 9 OF 6
GURUSWAMY STREET
K C ROAD
SHENKOTTA VILLAGE
SHENKOTTA TALUK
TAMIL NADU - 627809
BY ADVS.
C.RAJENDRAN
B.K.GOPALAKRISHNAN
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KERLA
ERNAKULAM - 682031
BY PP SRI K.A.ANAS
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
27.07.2022, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..1912/2022, THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
BA Nos.1912 & 2603 of 2022 3
VIJU ABRAHAM, J.
.................................................................
B.A.Nos.1912 & 2603 of 2022
.................................................................
Dated this the 27th day of July, 2022
ORDER
These are applications for regular bail.
B.A. No.1912 of 2022
2. Petitioner is the 2nd accused in Crime No.14 of 2020 of
Excise Range Office, Anchal, now pending as S.C.No.1156 of 2020 on
the file of the Additional Sessions Court, Kollam, registered alleging
commission of offences punishable under Sections 22(c), 27-A and 29
of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in
short, "NDPS Act").
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 13.08.2020 at
5.45 p.m. the Excise Circle Inspector of Aryankavu Range seized 36
strips each containing 24 capsules (total of 864 capsules) of a narcotic
drug named 'spasm plus' from the possession of 1st accused while
transporting the same in a vehicle bearing registration No.TN 92 C
3736. During the course of investigation, 1 st accused revealed that the
contraband was given to him by the 4th accused for the petitioner and
other accused and thus committed the abovesaid offences.
4. Petitioner submits that he has been falsely implicated in
the abovesaid crime only on the basis of a confession statement of co-
accused. Petitioner is in custody from 11.09.2020. Petitioner has
serious health issues so also his parents. 1st accused was granted bail
by the Sessions Court as per Annexure-6. The application for bail
preferred by the petitioner before the Sessions Court was rejected by
Annexure-7 and the bail applications filed before this Court was
rejected as per Annexures-8 and 9. It is pertinent to note that the
second bail application filed before this Court, i.e., B.A.No.8415 of
2020 by the petitioner was dismissed as per Annexure-9 order on the
ground that successive application for bail cannot be considered
unless there is a specific change in circumstance.
B.A.No.2603 of 2022
5. Petitioner is the 4th accused in Crime No.14 of 2020 of
Anchal Excise Range Office, Kollam registered alleging commission of
offences punishable under Sections 22(c) and 29 of the NDPS Act.
6. On interrogation of the 5th accused, he revealed the
applicant's involvement also in the alleged transportation of the drug
from Tamil Nadu. The petitioner was arrested consequently on
17.09.2020 and remanded to judicial custody.
7. Petitioner submits that he has been falsely implicated in
the said crime and is in custody from 17.09.2020 onwards. Though the
petitioner moved applications for bail, the same were rejected by
Annexures-A1 and A2 orders. A perusal of Annexure-A2 order shows
that the bail was rejected essentially for the reason that there is no
change in circumstance.
9. The learned Public Prosecutor seriously opposed both the
applications for bail based on the statement filed in B.A. No.1912 of
2022 and also based on the details revealed in the investigation as is
borne out from the case diary submitted that the alleged contraband
was brought with the knowledge and connivance of all the accused
and that the call records would reveal that the accused were in
constant contact with each other and further that the bank account
statements also will reveal that there are monetary transactions
between the accused. Further, it was contended that there is no
change in circumstance warranting consideration of the bail
applications in as much as earlier applications were also dismissed on
the very same ground.
10. The material evidence available against the accused
persons reveals the interstate drug transactions for selling narcotic
drugs in Kerala. It is a high time to prevent such nefarious activities in
the country to save the young blood from the deteriorate effect of the
drug abuse. Learned Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the bail
application by considering the gravity of offence and the net effect of
the drug abuse in the society at large. It is contended that in a
democratic country, the paramount consideration should be the
welfare of the people. It is also contended that the future of this
country rests on the young generation and if any harm on their future,
that will affect the future of this country.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioners essentially relies on
the judgment of the Apex Court in Bharat Chaudhary and others v.
Union of India and others, MANU/SC/1240/2021. Though several
contentions were taken in the said case the court passed an order in
that case essentially for the sole reason that there is no test report
regarding the alleged contraband. In the present case no such case
was put forwarded by the petitioners and therefore I find that the said
judgment is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case.
12. Since the quantity involved is of a commercial one, the
rigor of Section 37 of the NDPS Act will come into play. Petitioners
could not substantiate by cogent reasons that the twin conditions in
Section 37 of the NDPS Act are satisfied so as to grant bail. I also find
that petitioners could not substantiate further that there is any change
in circumstance warranting consideration of the present bail
applications by this Court. Both the bail applications are accordingly
dismissed.
Taking into consideration the fact that the final report is
already filed after investigation and the fact that petitioners are in
custody for long, there will be a direction to the trial court to expedite
the trial.
It is made clear that these prima facie observations are
made for the limited purpose of deciding this bail application and the
above opinion expressed shall not be regarded as opinion on merits,
during trial.
Sd/-
VIJU ABRAHAM
JUDGE
cks
