Kerala High Court
Muhammed Aneesh vs State Of Kerala on 12 April, 2024
Author: Bechu Kurian Thomas
Bench: Bechu Kurian Thomas
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 23RD CHAITHRA, 1946
CRL.MC NO. 2779 OF 2024
CRIME NO.520/2023 OF Cherpulassery Police Station, Palakkad
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 05.02.2024 IN CRMP NO.755 OF 2024
OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT, PALAKKAD
PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED NOS. 1&2:
1 MUHAMMED ANEESH
AGED 26 YEARS
SON OF AKBAR, KODAKKADAN HOUSE, KURUVATTOOR (P.O),
VALLAPPUZHA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT., PIN - 679336.
2 MANIKANDAN
AGED 30 YEARS
S/O. AYYAPPAN, CHETTIYARKUZHI HOUSE, KURUVATTOOR (P.O),
VALLAPPUZHA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT., PIN - 679336.
BY ADV NIREESH MATHEW
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT/STATE:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM, KOCHI., PIN - 682031.
SMT. SREEJA V. (PUBLIC PROSECUTOR)
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
12.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.MC NO. 2779 OF 2024
2
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
-----------------------------------------
Crl.M.C. No. 2779 of 2024
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 12th day of April, 2024
ORDER
Petitioners are accused Nos 1 and 2 in Crime No. 520 of 2023
of Cherpulassery Police Station, Palakkad alleging offences
punishable under Sections 22(c) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'the NDPS Act').
2. Prosecution alleges that on 08-08-2023, the accused were
found to be transporting 102.41gms of MDMA in a motor car bearing
registration KL- 52/R-7796. Pursuant to the registration of the crime,
petitioners were arrested on 08-08-2023 and they became eligible for
statutory bail on 05-02-2204 as they had completed 180 days in
custody by then. However, on 30-01-2024, the Public Prosecutor filed
a report under Section 36 A(4) of the NDPS Act seeking extension of
the detention of the petitioners upto a period of one year from the
date of remand and also to extend the time for investigation.
Petitioners objected to the said request. By order dated 05-02-2024,
the learned Session Judge allowed the request of the prosecution and
extended the custody of the accused for a further period of two
months from the date of expiry of 180 days of initial detention. The
CRL.MC NO. 2779 OF 2024
aforementioned order of the Session Judge is challenged in this
petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
3. I have heard Sri, Vivek Venugopal, the learned counsel for
the petitioners as well as Smt.V.Sreeja, the learned Public Prosecutor.
4. In the decision in Ubaid A.M. v. State of Kerala 2022
LiveLaw (Ker) 585, it was observed that in the report of the public
prosecutor under Section 36(A) (4) of the NDPS Act he shall narrate
the progress of the investigation and the specific reason for the
detention of the accused beyond 180 days. In a subsequent decision
in Dayal v. State of Kerala 2023(2) KHC 564 another learned Single
Judge of this Court observed that though the public prosecutor is not
expected to state every minute detail of the investigation for the
purpose of satisfying the Court about the progress, he should
specifically state the reasons for extending the period of detention of
the accused beyond 180 days.
5. With the above propositions of law in mind, when the request
for extension of the period of detention of the accused is considered, it
is evident that the requirement of specific reasons for extending the
period of custody of the petitioners falls woefully short. Paragraph 3
and 5 of the application submitted by the Prosecutor in
Crl.M.P.No.755/2024 are relevant in this context and is extracted as
below:
CRL.MC NO. 2779 OF 2024
"3. The perusal of the case diary shows that statements of
all the afore said accused, ie, A1, 2, 4 and 5 have been
recorded and considerable progress have been made in the
matter of collecting materials to prove the offence. But as a
matter of fact the materials so far received show that a lead
role has been played by Accused No.3, Muhammed Shafi in
obtaining MDMA and transporting it to Kerala. He is still at
large and the same is an impediment in completing the
investigation and filing the final report.
5. It is submitted that in the meanwhile it is also highly
necessary that the accused No. 1 & 2 in the above crime
who are under the judicial custody at present be kept in
detention further, lest there is every chance that they would
hamper the course of the investigation."
6. On a reading of the above extracted paragraphs from the
report of the public prosecutor, it is evident that only vague reasons
have been stated for requesting the extension of custody of the
petitioners. Since the continued custody of an accused beyond the
statutory period can infringe the right to life and liberty of the
individual, the said request for extension must specifically provide the
reasons. Vague reasons would not suffice the statutory mandate. The
report of the public prosecutor in the present case, only mentions
that if continued detention is not granted it may hamper the course of
the investigation and further that since the 3 rd accused is still at large
it will be an impedement in completing the investigation. According
CRL.MC NO. 2779 OF 2024
to me, both the reasons mentioned above, are not sufficient to extend
the custody of the petitioners.
7. In the result, the impugned order extending the custody of
the petitioners beyond the statutory period is quashed. The Sessions
Court is therefore directed to release the petitioners on bail
immediately subject to the following conditions:
(i) Petitioners shall execute a bond for Rs 1,00,000/- (Rupees
one lakh only) with two solvent sureties for the like amount to
the satisfaction of the Sessions Judge.
(ii) Petitioners, shall surrender their passports if any, before the
Sessions Court on the date of execution of bond, or within a
period of three days thereafter, after getting exemption in this
regard from the Sessions Court. If the petitioners do not have a
passport, they shall file affidavits stating so on the date of
execution of bond or within three days' thereafter.
(iii) Petitioners shall not leave the State of Kerala without
obtaining permission from the Court.
(iv) Petitioners shall co-operate with the investigation and shall
make themselves available for interrogation by the investigating
officer as and when required.
(v) Petitioners shall not commit any offence during currency of
the bail.
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
JUDGE
AJM/12/4/24
CRL.MC NO. 2779 OF 2024
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure 1 TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE REPORT IN
CRL.M.P. NO. 755/2024 FILED BEFORE THE
HON'BLE SESSIONS COURT, PALAKKAD DATED
30.01.2024.
Annexure 2 TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE COUNTER
STATEMENT FILED BY THE ACCUSED DATED
03.02.2024.
Annexure 3 TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
05.02.2024 IN CRL.M.P NO. 755/2024
PASSED BY THE COURT OF SESSIONS,
PALAKKAD.
