Kerala High Court
Siraj Vellarambil Mohammed vs State Of Kerala on 1 July, 2025
Author: Bechu Kurian Thomas
Bench: Bechu Kurian Thomas
2025:KER:47596
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
TUESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JULY 2025 / 10TH ASHADHA, 1947
BAIL APPL. NO. 7241 OF 2025
CRIME NO.4/2019 OF NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU,
KOCHI, ERNAKULAM AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED
25.03.2025 IN BAIL APPL. NO.3915 OF 2025 OF HIGH COURT OF
KERALA.
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.3:
SIRAJ VELLARAMBIL MOHAMMED,
AGED 35 YEARS,
S/O MUHAMMED, R/O PUTHIYOTTIL HOUSE,
32699A, THALAYAD P.O, UNNIKULAM VIA,
KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673 584.
BY ADVS.
SRI.SAM ISAAC POTHIYIL
SMT.S.SURAJA
SHRI.MUHAMMED SUHAIR C.A
SHRI.ABHILASH C.V.
SHRI.R.VINU RAJ, SPL. P. P. NARCOTICS CONTROL
BUREAU
SHRI.K.K.SUBEESH
RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682 031.
Bail Appl. No.7241 of 2025
2025:KER:47596
-2-
2 THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER,
NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU,
SUB-ZONE, COCHIN, PIN - 682 031.
SRI. R.VINU RAJ, SPL. PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
01.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
Bail Appl. No.7241 of 2025
2025:KER:47596
-3-
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
--------------------------------------
Bail Appl. No.7241 of 2025
------------------------------------
Dated this the 1st day of July, 2025
ORDER
This bail application is filed under section 483 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS').
2. Petitioner is the third accused in O.R. No.4 of 2019 of
Narcotic Control Bureau, Kochi, Ernakulam registered for the
offences punishable under sections 22(c), 23(c), 28 and 29 of the
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short
'NDPS Act').
3. According to the prosecution, pursuant to information
received on 02.09.2019, the first accused was found in possession
of 490 grams of methamphetamine in a hand baggage, as he was
about to travel out of India in Qatar Airways flight QR 537. The
investigation revealed that the third accused had handed over the
bag containing the contraband articles to the second accused, who
in turn, handed it over to the first accused and thus, the accused
together committed the offences alleged.
4. The first and second accused were arrested earlier
and, therefore, the case against them were split up and was tried
2025:KER:47596
as S.C.No.260 of 2020. By judgment dated 22.12.2021, the
Special Court for NDPS Act cases, Manjeri acquitted the first and
second accused. Since the petitioner, as the third accused, was
absconding, the case against him was split up and re-numbered as
S.C.No.522 of 2022. In the meantime, petitioner was arrested on
23.02.2025 and he has been in custody since then.
5. Sri.Sam Isaac Pothiyil, the learned counsel for the
petitioner submitted that the offences alleged against the
petitioner and the second accused are identical and, since the
second accused has already been acquitted, the benefit of the said
acquittal should be extended to the petitioner also. It was
submitted that there are no materials to connect the petitioner
with the crime and, hence, the rigour under Section 37 will stand
diluted and the petitioner ought to be released on bail.
6. Sri.R.Vinu Raj, the learned Special Public Prosecutor,
on the other hand, contended that the petitioner is alleged to have
conspired with the other accused to commit the offence and,
therefore, notwithstanding the acquittal of accused Nos.1 and 2,
and hence the offence will arise. It was also submitted that a
special leave to prefer an appeal against the judgment of acquittal
has already been preferred as Crl.L.P.No.496 of 2023 and
therefore the judgment of acquittal has not become final and
hence, the petitioner cannot rely on the acquittal of co-accused.
2025:KER:47596
The learned counsel further submitted that there are other
independent materials to connect the petitioner with the offence of
conspiracy and therefore, bail ought not to be granted.
7. I have considered the rival submissions.
8. Annexure- A1 is the judgment of acquittal in
S.C.No.260 of 2020 in respect of accused Nos.1 and 2 in the same
crime. Paragraphs 20 and 21 of the said judgment reads as
below:-
"20. The offence alleged against the 2nd
accused is that he conspired together along with first
accused for exporting methamphetamine from India
to Doha. It is true that from Ext.P44 series call details
controlled by the mobile numbers of A2 he had
contacted Al. Since the possession of the contraband
articles by A1 itself is doubtful, and not proved, there
is no question of entering into conspiracy by A1 and
A2 for the export of the contraband articles. It is true
that Ext.P14 the confession statement of A1 and
Ext.P33 confession statement of A2 were marked.
Those are not admissible in evidence in the light of
the decision in Tofansing V. Tamil Nadu reported in
2020(6) KHC 111 wherein Hon'ble Apex court has
held that officers who are invested with powers u/s 53
are police officers within the meaning of sec.25 of
Evidence Act, as a result of which any confessional
statements made to them would be barred u/s 25 of
Evidence Act and cannot be taken into account in
order to convict a accused under the NDPS Act.
Therefore Ext. P14 and Ext.P33 are not admissible in
evidence and hence cannot be relied on.
21. Considering the above discussion it can
only be concluded that the prosecution has failed to
prove that Al was in possession of 490 grams of
Methamphetamine and has attempted to export the
same from India and both Al and A2 have conspired
2025:KER:47596
together for exporting 490 grams of
methamphetamine from India. Hence A1 and A2
cannot be found guilty for offences u/s 22(c), 23(c),
28 and 29 of NDPS Act and they are acquitted.
Therefore these points are found accordingly against
the prosecution."
9. A reading of the above extracted portion of the
judgment of acquittal of accused 1 and 2 indicates that the
prosecution had failed to prove that the first accused was in
possession of 490 grams of methamphetamine or that he had
attempted to export the same from India or even that the first and
second accused had conspired to export the contraband from
India. The aforesaid judgment was not been appealed against by
the Narcotics Control Bureau until 2023 when they filed a leave
petition as Crl.L.P. No.496 of 2023. Even now, leave has not
been granted by the Court. Since the Judgment of acquittal has
not been reversed till now, I am of the view that the observations
in the said judgment have a bearing on the question of existence of
reasonable grounds to believe that the accused is guilty or not.
10. Since the contraband allegedly seized from the first
accused falls in the category of commercial quantity, the rigour
under Section 37 of NDPS is attracted. However, to continue the
custody of the petitioner, there must be reasonable grounds
before this Court to believe that the petitioner is guilty of the
2025:KER:47596
offences alleged. When a Court of law has already decided, based
on the evidence adduced by the prosecution, in respect of
co-accused, that there is nothing to prove that there was any
conspiracy or that the first accused was in possession of the
contraband allegedly seized, I am of the view that the alleged
conspiracy, even against the petitioner will have to fail, atleast
prima facie: As the second accused stands on the same footing
even in respect of conspiracy as that of the third accused, the
finding of acquittal in favour of the second accused stares at the
face of the prosecution, even in respect of the petitioner.
11. Though it was pointed out that the petitioner is
involved in similar other crimes for having committed an offence
under the NDPS Act for possessing an intermediate quantity of
crime, I am of the view that, since there are no reasonable
grounds to believe that he is guilty of the offence, the continued
detention is not warranted as the rigour under Section 37 stands
diluted.
In the result, this application is allowed on the following
conditions:-
(a) Petitioner shall be released on bail on him executing
a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) with
two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the
satisfaction of the court having jurisdiction.
(b) Petitioner shall co-operate with the trial of the case.
2025:KER:47596
(c) Petitioner shall not intimidate or attempt to influence
the witnesses; nor shall he attempt to tamper with the
evidence.
(d) Petitioner shall not commit any similar offences
while he is on bail.
(e) Petitioner shall not leave the country without the
permission of the jurisdictional Court.
In case of violation of any of the above conditions or if
any modification or deletion of the conditions are required, the
jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider such
applications, if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance
with law, notwithstanding the bail having been granted by this
Court.
Sd/-
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
JUDGE
ADS
2025:KER:47596
APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 7241/2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN
S.C.NO.260/2020 DATED 22.12.20221 OF
THE COURT FOR SC/ST (POA) ACT & NDPS
ACT CASES MANJERI, MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT.
Annexure A2 THE TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED
05.03.2025 PASSED BY THE SPECIAL COURT
FOR SC/ST (POA) ACT & NDPS ACT CASES
MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT IN
CRL.M.P. NO. 01/2025.
Annexure A3 THE TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED
25.03.2025 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE
COURT IN BA NO 3915/2024.
Annexure A4 THE TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED
24.05.2025 PASSED BY THE SPECIAL COURT
FOR SC/ST (POA) ACT & NDPS ACT CASES
MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT IN
CRL.M.P. NO. 02/2025.
Annexure A5 TRUE COPY OF THE INVOICE IN FAVOUR OF
THE SAID SIRAJ V.M ISSUED BY THE LEELA
PALACE HOTEL IN CHENNAI IN CONNECTION
WITH HIS STAY IN THE SAID HOTEL TILL
01.09.2019.
RESPONDENT ANNEXURES
Annexure R1 DOCUMENT SHOWING ORIGINAL GST NUMBER
OF LEELA, CHENNAI.
