Kerala High Court
Lasith Roshan vs State Of Kerala on 7 March, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
2025:KER:19464
BAIL APPL. NO.3020 OF 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 16TH PHALGUNA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 3020 OF 2025
CRIME NO.238/2022 OF Vadanappally Police Station, Thrissur
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN Bail Appl. NO.9281 OF
2023 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NO.3:
LASITH ROSHAN
AGED 34 YEARS, S/O. SATHEESHAN, ARAYANGATTIL HOUSE,
KOORIKKUZHI, PATHINETTUMURI, KAIPPAMNGALAM VILLAGE,
THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 681
BY ADVS.
P.MOHAMED SABAH
LIBIN STANLEY
SAIPOOJA
SADIK ISMAYIL
R.GAYATHRI
M.MAHIN HAMZA
ALWIN JOSEPH
BENSON AMBROSE
RESPONDENT(S)/STATE & COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 031
2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
VADANAPPILLY POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT,, PIN -
680 614
BY ADV.:
SRI. NOUSHAD K A, SR.PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
07.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:19464
BAIL APPL. NO.3020 OF 2025
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------------
B.A.No.3020 of 2025
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 07th day of March, 2025
ORDER
This Bail Application is filed under Section 483 of
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
2. Petitioner is the 3rd accused in Crime
No.238/2022 of Vadanappally Police Station, Thrissur. The
above case is registered against the petitioner and others
alleging offences punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(c) and
29(1) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,
1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the NDPS Act').
3. The prosecution case is that, on 03.04.2022
at 04.20 AM, the accused Nos.1 and 2 were found in
possession of 7 Kgs of Hashish Oil, while they were
transporting the same in a lorry bearing Registration
No.KL-45-U-9003 at Vadanappally Junction. The specific
allegation against the petitioner is that he had handed over
the aforementioned contraband to the 1 st and 2nd accused
2025:KER:19464
BAIL APPL. NO.3020 OF 2025
from Coimbatore.
4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that,
the petitioner was arrested on 21.01.2023. The counsel relied
on the judgment of the Apex Court in Ankur Chaudhary v.
State of Madhya Pradesh [2024 Live Law (SC) 416],
Nitish Adhikary @ Bapan v. The State of West Bengal
[SLP to Appeal (Crl.) No.5769 of 2022] and also
Hasanujjaman and others v. The State of West Bengal
[SLP to Appeal (Crl.) No.3221 of 2023] and submitted
that when there is incarceration for more than one year and
four months, the rigour under Section 37 of the NDPS Act can
be diluted. The counsel submitted that, in this case the
petitioner is in custody from 21.01.2023 and therefore the
petitioner is entitled bail.
6. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail
application. Public Prosecutor submitted that the allegation
against the petitioner is very serious and the quantity of
2025:KER:19464
BAIL APPL. NO.3020 OF 2025
contraband seized is commercial quantity.
7. This Court considered the contention of the
petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. In Ankur Chaudhary's
case (Supra) the Apex Court observed like this:-
"6. Now, on examination, the panch witnesses have
not supported the case of prosecution. On facts, we
are not inclined to consider the Investigation Officer as
a panch witness. It is to observe that failure to
conclude the trial within a reasonable time resulting in
prolonged incarceration militates against the precious
fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India, and as such, conditional liberty
overriding the statutory embargo created under
Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act may, in such
circumstances, be considered."
8. In Hasanujjaman's case (supra), the Apex
Court considered a case in which the accused were in custody
for one year and four months. In that case also the
contraband seized is commercial quantity. Even then the
Apex Court granted bail.
9. In Nitish Adhikary's case (supra), the Apex
Court observed like this:-
2025:KER:19464
BAIL APPL. NO.3020 OF 2025
"During the course of the hearing, we are informed that
the petitioner has undergone custody for a period of 01
year and 07 months as on 09.06.2022. The trial is at a
preliminary stage, as only one witness has been
examined. The petitioner does not have any criminal
antecedents."
10. Keeping in mind the above dictum, this Court
considered the contentions of the petitioner. The petitioner is
in custody from 21.01.2023. That means the petitioner is in
custody for more than two years. Therefore, the rigour under
Section 37 of the NDPS Act can be relaxed. In such
circumstances, I think, the petitioner can be released on bail
after imposing stringent conditions. I make it clear that, if
the petitioner committed similar offence in future, the
Investigating Officer can file appropriate application before
the Jurisdictional Court for the cancellation of bail, and if such
an application is received, the Jurisdictional Court can pass
appropriate orders in it, even though this order is passed by
this Court.
Therefore, this bail application is allowed with the
following directions:
2025:KER:19464
BAIL APPL. NO.3020 OF 2025
1. Petitioner shall be released on bail on
executing a bond for Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees
Two lakhs only) with two solvent sureties
each for the like sum to the satisfaction of
the jurisdictional Court.
2. The petitioner shall appear before the
Investigating Officer for interrogation as and
when required. The petitioner shall co-
operate with the investigation and shall not,
directly or indirectly make any inducement,
threat or promise to any person acquainted
with the facts of the case so as to dissuade
him from disclosing such facts to the Court
or to any police officer.
3. Petitioner shall not leave India without
permission of the jurisdictional Court.
4. Petitioner shall not commit an offence
similar to the offence of which he is
accused, or suspected, of the commission of
2025:KER:19464
BAIL APPL. NO.3020 OF 2025
which he is suspected.
5. If any of the above conditions are violated
by the petitioner, the jurisdictional Court can
cancel the bail in accordance to law, even
though the bail is granted by this Court. The
prosecution is at liberty to approach the
jurisdictional court to cancel the bail, if there
is any violation of the above conditions.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JUDGE
nvj
