Kerala High Court

Siddque vs State Of Kerala on 13 September, 2024

                                                          2024:KER:70342
              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

              THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN

     FRIDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024 / 22ND BHADRA, 1946

                     BAIL APPL. NO. 6385 OF 2024

      CRIME NO.619/2022 OF KOLATHUR POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM




PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2:
           SIDDQUE
           AGED 40 YEARS
           S/O.MOHAMMEDKUTTY, KAMBURAM HOUSE, KUTTIPURAM P.O.,
           KOTTAKKAL, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 679571


           BY ADVS.
           S.RAJEEV
           V.VINAY
           M.S.ANEER
           SARATH K.P.
           PRERITH PHILIP JOSEPH
           ANILKUMAR C.R.
           K.S.KIRAN KRISHNAN
           NOURIN S. FATHIMA
           NISSAM NAZZAR


RESPONDENT/STATE:
           STATE OF KERALA
           REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
           ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
           BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.P.PRASANTH
     THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.8.2024,
THE COURT ON 13.09.2024, PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
  BA.NO.6385 OF 2024                  2
                                                        2024:KER:70342

                           ORDER

Dated this the 13th day of September, 2024

This is the 4th application for regular bail, filed under

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023,

by the petitioner, who is the 2 nd accused in Crime

No.619/2022 of Kolathur Police Station, Malappuram, now

pending as S.C.No.90/2022 on the files of the files of the

Special Court, Manjeri.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

the learned Public Prosecutor, in detail. Perused the relevant

records.

3. The prosecution case is that, at about 06.15 p.m.

on 21.09.2022, the 1st accused in this crime was nabbed by the

police when he was found in illegal possession of 140 grams

of MDMA in the Padapparambu-Perinthalmanna Public Road

near AL HILAL Academy, for the purpose of sale. Later,

enquiry revealed that the petitioner herein also involved in

this crime and accordingly, he was incorporated as the 2 nd

2024:KER:70342

accused in this crime. Thus, the prosecution alleges

commission of offences punishable under Sections 22(c) and

29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropics Substances Act

('the NDPS Act' for short hereinafter), jointly by accused

Nos.1 and 2.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued at

length to convince this Court that the 2 nd accused is innocent

in this crime and nothing recovered from the conscious

possession of the 2nd accused to implicate him in this crime. It

is argued that only because of an employer-employee

relationship with the 1st accused and the petitioner, he was

nabbed and subjected to gruesome ordeals and incarceration.

It is also submitted that the petitioner's mobile phone,

bearing Registration No.9605050851 was lost and other

mobile phone used by the petitioner, bearing

Reg.No.8838285501 has been seized by the police. It is

pointed out further that the materials available to connect the

petitioner in this crime are only the confession statement of

2024:KER:70342

the co-accused and the call details between them and the

above materials are quite insufficient to fasten criminal

culpability as held by the Apex Court in the decision reported

in [Manu/SC/1240/2021], Bharatchaudhary & Ors. v.

Union of India (UOI) & Ors. Apart from the argument,

the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the

petitioner has been in custody for last 20 months and the

direction to expedite the trial issued by this Court, while

considering the earlier bail application, also not complied.

Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail.

5. Whereas, it is submitted by the learned Public

Prosecutor that the complicity of the petitioner in this crime

is well established. According to the learned Public

Prosecutor, the prosecution collected evidence in this case

with regard to the joint residence of the 1st and 2nd accused

and when the 1st accused was questioned, he had given

statement that the contraband was given by one Muthu, later

identified as the 2nd accused. That apart, the prosecution

2024:KER:70342

when recorded the confession statement of the 2 nd accused, he

had conceded that at the time, when recovery was effected,

the mobile phone of the 1 st accused was kept at the car of the

2nd accused and when the 2 nd accused ran away, the mobile

phone of the 1st accused was lost during running and

immediately, the 2nd accused destructed his mobile phone.

The learned Public Prosecutor also pointed out the call details

in between the 1st and 2nd accused, immediately before

occurrence and during the time of occurrence, to prove the

complicity of the petitioner at par with the 1 st accused.

According to the learned Public Prosecutor, the earlier

direction issued by this Court also could not be materialized

because of the dilatory tactics played by the petitioner, with a

view to drag the trial and to canvass bail, on the said ground.

6. In this matter, the earlier bail application,

viz.,B.A.No.628/2023 filed by the petitioner has been

dismissed after extensively considering the arguments

tendered finding that the rider under Section 37 of the NDPS

2024:KER:70342

Act would attract in this case and therefore, grant of bail

could not be considered in a case involving commercial

quantity of contraband. The relevant paragraphs of Annexure

III order in B.A.No.628/2023, read as under:

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued at length to convince this Court that the 2nd accused is innocent in this crime and nothing recovered from the conscious possession of the 2nd accused to implicate him in this crime. It is argued that only because of an employer-employee relationship with the 1st accused and the petitioner, he was nabbed and subjected to gruesome ordeals and incarceration. It is also submitted that the petitioner's mobile phone, bearing Registration No.9605050851 was lost and other mobile phone used by the petitioner, bearing Reg.No.8838285501 has been seized by the police. It is pointed out further that the materials available to connect the petitioner in this crime are only the confession statement of the co-accused and the call details between them and the above materials are quite insufficient to fasten criminal culpability as

2024:KER:70342

held by the Apex Court in the decision reported in [Manu/SC/1240/2021], Bharatchaudhary & Ors. v. Union of India (UOI) & Ors.The learned counsel has given emphasis to para.11 to convince the same. Para.11 is extracted hereunder:

"11. In the absence of any psychotropic substance found in the conscious possession of A-4, we are of the opinion that mere reliance on the statement made by A-1 to A-3 under Section 67 of the NDPS Act is too tenuous a ground to sustain the impugned order dated 15th July, 2021. This is all the more so when such a reliance runs contrary to the ruling in Tofan Singh (supra). The impugned order qua A-4 is, accordingly, quashed and set aside and the order dated 2nd November, 2020 passed by the learned Special Judge, EC & NDPS Cases, is restored. As for Raja Chandrasekharan [A-1], since the charge sheet has already been filed and by now the said Accused has

2024:KER:70342

remained in custody for over a period of two years, it is deemed appropriate to release him on bail, subject to the satisfaction of the trial Court."

5. Similarly, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed another decision of the Apex Court reported in [2010 KHC 4495 : AIR 2010 SC 3638 : 2010 (12) SCC 91], Bipin Kumar Mondal v. State of West Bengal, to contend that mere absconsion of the accused by itself does not necessarily lead to a firm conclusion of the guilt of the accused.

6. Another decision reported in [2022 (1) KHC 853 : 2022 (1) KLT 552 : 2022 KHC OnLine 6172 : 2022 (2) SCALE 14 :

MANU/SC/0053/2022], State by (NCB) Bengaluru & Ors. v. Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta & Ors. also has been placed to contend that confession statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act will remain inadmissible in trial of offences under the NDPS Act. [MANU/SC/0854/2022], State of West Bengal v. Rakesh Singh also submitted in this regard.

7. Whereas it is submitted by the learned

2024:KER:70342

Public Prosecutor that the complicity of the petitioner in this crime is well established. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, the prosecution collected evidence in this case with regard to the joint residence of the 1 st and 2nd accused and when the 1st accused was questioned, he had given statement that the contraband was given by one Muthu, later identified as the 2nd accused. That apart, the prosecution when recorded the confession statement of the 2nd accused, he had conceded that at the time, when recovery was effected, the mobile phone of the 1st accused was kept at the car of the 2nd accused and when the 2nd accused ran away, the mobile phone of the 1staccused was lost during running and immediately the 2nd accused destructed his mobile phone. The learned Public Prosecutor also pointed out the call details in between the 1st and 2nd accused, immediately before occurrence and during the time of occurrence, to prove the complicity of the petitioner at par with the 1st accused.

8. It is true that the confession statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act is inadmissible in evidence as rightly held by the

2024:KER:70342

Apex Court in [2020 (6) KHC 111], Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu. However, in a subsequent decision reported in [2022 SCC OnLine SC 891], Narcotics Control Bureau v. Mohit Aggarwal, a 3 Bench of the Apex Court, while affirming the said view, in para.17 of the judgment observed as under:

"17. Even dehors the confessional statement of the respondent and the other co-accused recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, which were subsequently retracted by them, the other circumstantial evidence brought on record by the appellant-NCB ought to have dissuaded the High Court from exercising its discretion in favour of the respondent and concluding that there were reasonable grounds to justify that he was not guilty of such an offence under the NDPS Act. We are not persuaded by the submission made by learned counsel for the respondent and the observation made in the

2024:KER:70342

impugned order that since nothing was found from the possession of the respondent, he is not guilty of the offence for which he has been charged. Such an assumption would be premature at this stage."

9. In the case at hand, even though the petitioner raised absolute plea of innocence, the same could not be gathered from the available materials. The case records would go to show that initially the 1st accused disclosed the name of Muthu and later it was revealed that the 1st accused purposefully said a different name as that of the 2 nd accused. That apart, as on 19.09.2022 and 20.09.2022, the accused herein jointly stayed at the C.M.Palace Lodge, Virajpet.

10. It is relevant to note that even though the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that final report was filed before the trial court, confession statements as that of the 1st and 2nd accused, were not produced, the same are available in the case diary and the same would suggest that the 2 nd accused herein destroyed his mobile phone soon after

2024:KER:70342

the arrest of the 1st accused and also he would say that the mobile phone of the 1 st accused was at his car at the time of occurrence. If so, the connection of the 1st accused and 2nd accused in the transport of MDMA, as alleged by the prosecution, is prima facie established. It is interesting to note further that the 2 nd accused given statement to the Investigating Officer that he ran away with both mobile phones (including that of the 1 st accused) and the mobile phone of the 1st accused missed during his run. Call details between the 1 st and 2nd accused and their joint stay at the same room on the previous day of occurrence are very vital piece of materials to show the involvement of the petitioner in this crime prima facie. Thus on preliminary analysis of the facts of the case, there is no reason to hold at present that the petitioner is innocent and he has no role in this occurrence. To the contrary, it appears that the petitioner has role in this crime along with the 1st accused and, therefore, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be appraised. But the same can be taken during trial by support of convincing evidence.

2024:KER:70342

11. Here, admittedly commercial quantity of contraband was seized and therefore, the rigour under Section 37 of the NDPS Act would apply. Section 37 of the NDPS Act provides as under:

37. Offences to be cognizable and non-

bailable.--

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974),--

(a) every offence punishable under this Act shall be cognizable;

(b) no person accused of an offence punishable for offences under section 19 or section 24 or section 27A and also for offences involving commercial quantity shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless--

(i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and

(ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the

2024:KER:70342

application, the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.

(2) The limitations on granting of bail specified in clause (b) of sub-section (1) are in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail.

12. On a perusal of Section 37(1)(a)(i), when the Public Prosecutor opposes bail application of a person involved in a crime, where commercial quantity of the contraband was seized, the Court can grant bail only after satisfying two conditions: viz; (1) There are 'reasonable grounds' for believing that the accused is not guilty of such offences and (2) he will not commit any offence while on bail.

13. The Apex Court considered the meaning of 'reasonable grounds' in the decision reported in (2007) 7 SCC 798, Union of India v.

2024:KER:70342

Shiv Shankar Kesari and held that the expression 'reasonable grounds' means something more than prima facie grounds. It connotes substantial probable causes for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offence charged and this reasonable belief contemplated in turn points to existence of such facts and circumstances as are sufficient in themselves to justify recording of satisfaction that the accused is not guilty of the offence charged.

14. It was further held that the Court while considering the application for bail with reference to S.37 of the Act is not called upon to record a finding of not guilty. It is for the limited purpose essentially confined to the question of releasing the accused on bail that the Court is called upon to see if there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty and records its satisfaction about the existence of such grounds. But the Court has not to consider the matter as if it is pronouncing a judgment of acquittal and recording a finding of not guilty.

15. While considering the rider under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the same principles

2024:KER:70342

have been reiterated, in the decisions reported in Superintendent, Narcotics Central Bureau v. R.Paulsamy [2000 KHC 1549:

AIR 2000 SC 3661: (2000) 9 SCC 549: 2001 SCC (Cri) 648: 2001 CrilLJ 117], Customs, New Delhi v. Ahmadalieva Nodira [2004 KHC 505: AIR 2004 SC 3022:2004(3) SCC 549: 2004 SCC (Cri) 834: 2004 (110) DLT 300:

2004 CriLJ 1810: 2004 (166) ELT 302], Union of India v. Abdulla [2004 KHC 1992: 2004(13) SCC 504: 2005 CriLJ 3115: 2005 All LJ 2334], N.R.Mon v. Md.Nasimuddin [2008 KHC 6547: 2008(6) SCC 721: 2008(2) KLD 316: 2008(2) KLT 1022: 2008(9) SCALE 334: AIR 2008 SC 2576:2008 CriLJ 3491: 2008(3) SCC (Cri) 29], Union of India v. Rattan Malik [2009 KHC 4151: 2009(2) SCC 624: 2009(2) KLT SN 83: 2009 (1) SCC (Cri) 831:2009 CriLJ 3042: 2009 (4) ALL LJ 627: 2009(2) SCALE 51], Union of India v. Niyazuddin [2017 KHC 4465: AIR 2017 SC 3932: 2018 (13) SCC 738], State of Kerala v. Rajesh [2020(1) KHC 557: AIR 2020 SC 721: 2020(1) KLJ 664: 2020(2) KLT SN1 : ILR 2020(1), Ker.848]. The latest decision on this point is [2023 CriLJ 799], Union of India v.

2024:KER:70342

Jitentra Giri.

16. On a plain reading of Section 37(1) (b) and 37(1)(b) (ii) of the NDPS Act, within the ambit of the Settled law, it has to be understood that two ingredients shall be read conjunctively and not disjunctively. Therefore satisfaction of both conditions are sine qua non for granting bail to an accused who alleged to have been committed the offences under Section 19 or Section 24 or Section 27A and also for the offences involving commercial quantity as provided under Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act. Unless Section 37 is not amended by the legislature in cases specifically referred under Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act the Court could not grant bail without recording satisfaction of the above twin ingredients.

17. On evaluation of the prosecution materials on par with the arguments tendered by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor, this Court cannot satisfy that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner is innocent and he will not commit any offence while on bail. Therefore, application for

2024:KER:70342

regular bail at the instance of the petitioner must fail.

Hence the petition stands dismissed."

7. Since the learned counsel for the petitioner pressed

for bail, highlighting the custody of the petitioner for 20

months and failure to dispose of the case, as directed by this

Court, I have called for a report of the learned Special Judge,

Manjeri. The learned Special Judge as per report, dated

19.8.2024, reported as under:

As per the reference 2nd cited above, Hon'ble High Court of Kerala directed me to submit a report as to why the direction in the order in Bail Appl.No.5506/2023 dated 17.11.2023 was not complied, the stage of the present crime and also to the time required for disposal of the case. With reference to the above, I may submit the following.

As per the order cited as 1st reference above, Hon'ble High Court of Kerala directed this court to expedite the trial and dispose of the case SC.90/2023 within a period of 6 months. When the order copy was received the case stood

2024:KER:70342

posted to 18.12.2023. There was direction by Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in WP(Crl).996/2023 to defer the trial of the case till the request for further investigation was decided by State Police Chief. On 18.12.2023 letter was received from State Police Chief that request for further investigation was declined. In the meanwhile accused filed CMP.4/2023 with a prayer to direct the investigation officer to furnish copies of bank statements of accused. CMP.5/2023 also was filed to direct mobile phone service provider to preserve and provide CDR pertaining to the accused. CMP.4/2023 was allowed in part and CMP.5/2023 was allowed on 04.01.2024. Summons was issued to mobile phone service provider to produce documents on 15.01.2024. A2 filed Crl.R.P.No.1342/2023 before the Hon'ble High Court challenging the charge framed by this court on ground that Rule 8(16) of Electronic video Linkage Rules was not followed. As there was omission to obtain the signature of the accused in the uneditable scanned copy of the plea recorded, accused were directed to be produced physically and charge was read over and explained to the accused afresh.

2024:KER:70342

Crl.R.P.1342/2023 was dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala with a direction to consider discharge petition of the accused. The discharge petition CMP No.6/2024 was dismissed on 23.01.2024. The prosecution had not complied with the direction in the order in CMP.4/2023 to produce a report regarding the entries in bank statements relied on by the prosecution. Therefore, SHO Kolathoor was directed to be present on 25.01.2024. SHO Kolathur appeared on 25.01.2024 and he produced the report on 30.01.2024. Copies of the same were furnished to the defence counsel. Accused filed CMP.8/2024 to direct investigation officer to provide CDR and tower location of three mobile phone numbers which was allowed.

Thereafter, the accused filed CMP.09/2024 for adjournment and CMP.10/2024 to direct the prosecution to furnish list of statements, documents material objects and exhibits, not relied on by the Investigating officer and unrelied upon documents discovered by investigation, including confession statement, on the basis of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court. The said petition was allowed on 17.02.2024.

2024:KER:70342

Prosecution was directed to furnish list of documents, material objects and the exhibits not relied on by the prosecution within 3 days. SHO Kolathur filed a report in compliance with the direction. Thereafter accused filed CMP.11/2024 to reject report of SHO Kolathur and direct the prosecution to furnish confection statements of accused, report for police custody with affidavit and report submitted by the police to send back the accused to jail. CMP.11/24 was allowed on 11.03.2024 and case posted to 14.03.2024. Copies were produced by prosecution on 15.03.2024 in compliance with the direction in CMP.11/2023. There was no representation for the accused on that day. Therefore the case was posted to 16.03.2024 for scheduling the case. On 16.03.24 defence counsel filed a memo praying for adjournment stating that there are copies of further documents to be furnished to accused, including documents for mobile phone service provider. Summons was repeated to Mobile Phone Service Provider and investigation officer was directed to comply with the order in CMP.08/24 dated 07.03.2024. Prosecution was directed to furnish copies of all remand reports to accused. The copies of remand reports were

2024:KER:70342

furnished on 26.3.2024. The copies of remaining documents were furnished by the prosecution on 02.04.2024. Learned defence counsel was absent on 02.04.2024 and case was posted to 04.04.2024. On that day accused sought for adjournment to verify whether directions of this court were complied with and the accused were given documents as directed by this court. The case was posted to 05.04.2024. On 05.04.2024, another memo was filed by defence counsel, stating that call details furnished in the form of compact disc is not sufficient and accused are to be given hard copy of the document and raising other objections. The objections raised in the memo were rejected and the case was posted for scheduling for the trial on 08.04.2024. Thereafter CMP.12/2024 filed by accused was dismissed on 12.04.2024 and the case was again posted on 15.04.2024 for scheduling the case for trial as the defence counsel was absent. On 15.04.2024 also defence counsel was absent and therefore case was posted to 16.04.2024 directing the counsel to be present. On 16.04.2024, defence counsel reported that he relinquished vakkalath for A1. A1 was given time to engage another counsel and the case was

2024:KER:70342

posted on 18.04.2024 for scheduling the case. On 18.04.2024 defence counsel was absent and the case was posted to 19.04.2024. On that day also defence counsel was absent and the case was posted on 22.04.2024 for scheduling the case. On 22.04.2024 the case was scheduled for examination of CW1 on 04.05.2024. On 04.05.2024 counsel for A2 reported that the case is stayed by Hon'ble High Court of Kerala for 2 weeks and therefore the case was adjourned to 20.05.2024.

As per the letter dated 16.05.2024, I submitted for extension of time by four months to dispose of the case submitting the above facts.

On 21.05.2024, learned defence counsel reported that stay was extended by one week and therefore the case was adjourned to 28.05.2024. On 28.05.2024, learned defence counsel reported that the stay is extended and the case was adjourned to 04.06.2024. Thereafter, the case was adjourned to 05.06.2024, 15.06.2024, 01.07.2024 and 08.07.2024 as it was reported that stay was extended. On 08.07.2024, the case was posted to 10.07.2024 to schedule the case, as no stay order was produced. On 10.07.2024, learned defence

2024:KER:70342

counsel reported that Hon'ble High Court of Kerala disposed of the case and the copy of the order has not been obtained. He sought further time to produce copy of the order. Learned defence counsel produced the copy of the order of Hon'ble High Court of Kerala on 17.07.2024. Hon'ble High Court of Kerala directed that prosecution shall provide the report regarding specific entries in the bank account statement proposed to be relied upon by them during the trial (copies of which were produced before Hon'ble High Court of Kerala along with memo dated 20.05.2024). Hon'ble High Court of Kerala further directed the prosecution to produce list of unrelied documents from the case diary (as mentioned in paragraph 8 of the statement filed on behalf of the respondent before Hon'ble High Court of Kerala, dated 02.07.2024). Therefore, this court directed the prosecution to comply with the direction and the case was posted to next day, 18.07.2024.

As the direction was not complied with, the case was adjourned to the next day, 19.07.2024. On that day also direction was not complied with, Public Prosecutor sought for time and therefore the case was adjourned to next day, to

2024:KER:70342

20.07.2024. On 20.07.2024, direction was again not complied with and learned defence counsel also was absent. Therefore, it was directed that the case will be taken up in the afternoon on that day. Learned defence counsel was absent in the afternoon also and copies of documents were produced by the prosecution in the afternoon. On perusal of the documents produced, it was not in compliance with direction of Hon'ble High Court of Kerala and therefore I directed SHO, Kolathur and learned defence counsel to be present on 22.07.2024. SHO appeared on 22.07.2024 and he explained that he joined the police Station only two days back and he requested for further time to comply with the direction. Considering his submission, the case of posted after 2 days on 24.07.2024. Learned defence counsel was absent on 24.07.2024 also and Public Prosecutor sought for further time to comply with the direction. I directed that in case of further lapse on the part of prosecution, action will be taken and the case was posted to 29.07.2024.

On 29.07.2024, a report in respect of the bank account and the list of documents unrelied on were submitted. On that day, defence counsel was present and short time to verify the report

2024:KER:70342

and list of documents. Therefore, the case was posted to next day, 30.07.2024. On 30.07.2024 learned defence counsel raised the objection that call data records of the case are not seen included either in the list of documents relied on or in the list of documents unrelied on. He further submitted that accused were not furnished with copies of confession statements of accused. Though the accused are entitled to copies of documents not relied on, u/s.207 Cr.P.C., Public Prosecutor submitted that prosecution has no objection in furnishing copy of confession statements to avoid further delay in trial. Public Prosecutor furnished copies of confession statements of the both accused to the defence counsel. Public Prosecutor submitted that prosecution will file a fresh list of documents relied on. The case was posted on the next day.

On 31.07.2024, Public Prosecutor sought further time and the case was posted to the next day on 01.08.2024. On 01.08.2024, additional list of documents was furnished by Inspector of Police, Kolathur through Public Prosecutor. Public Prosecutor submitted that he would also submit a report as to the specific entries in the

2024:KER:70342

call data records relied on by the prosecution and therefore the case was adjourned to 05.08.2024. Prosecution filed CMP.14/2024 to receive the additional list of documents and after hearing both sides, the petition was posted for orders. In the meanwhile, it was noticed that the list of documents unrelied on was missing from case records. Therefore, the petition CMP.14/2024 was reopened for hearing and after perusing the copy of document unrelied on from the learned defence counsel and the Public Prosecutor, the petition was disposed of and the case was posted for re- scheduling the case to 14.08.2024.

On 14.08.2024, learned defence counsel sought further time to schedule the case. However, as there is direction to dispose of the case within time frame, learned defence counsel was informed that no further adjournment can be granted. Then he made a submission that the case may be scheduled to the last week of September for examination of CW1, as it is inconvenient for the defence counsel for A1 (Adv. Krishna Prasad) and counsel for A2 (Adv. Nisam Nassar) to conduct the case before said dates. The case was scheduled for examination of CW1

2024:KER:70342

on 25.09.2024.

8. Thus, it appears that now, the case posted for

examination of CW1 to 25.9.2024 and the trial could not be

materialized so far, for the reasons submitted by the learned

Public Prosecutor and reported by the learned Special Judge.

Hence, the petitioner does not deserve bail and therefore, this

petition must fail.

Accordingly, this bail application stands dismissed,

directing the learned Special Judge to expedite trial and close

the same, at any rate, within a period of two months from

25.9.2024.