Kerala High Court
Raunak Saju George vs State Of Kerala on 10 March, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
2025:KER:20689
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
MONDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 19TH PHALGUNA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 1880 OF 2025
CRIME NO.1232/2024 OF Anchal Police Station, Kollam
PETITIONER/S:
LEENA JACOB THUNDIYIL
AGED 48 YEARS
WIFE OF SRI. SAJU GEORGE THUNDIYIL HOUSE, RONAK
HOUSE, KADAVARAM, ALAYAMON, KARUKONE P.O., KOLLAM
DISTRICT, KERALA, PIN - 691306
BY ADV LUKE J CHIRAYIL
RESPONDENT/S:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN - 682031
SRI.NOUSHAD.K.A, SR.PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
10.03.2025, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..2504/2025, THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:20689
BAIL APPL. NOS.1880 & 2504 OF 2025
2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
MONDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 19TH PHALGUNA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 2504 OF 2025
CRIME NO.1232/2024 OF Anchal Police Station, Kollam
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 06.02.2025 IN CMP
NO.982 OF 2025 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I,
PUNALUR
PETITIONER/S:
RAUNAK SAJU GEORGE
AGED 22 YEARS
SON OF SRI. SAJU GEORGE THUNDIYIL HOUSE, RONAK
HOUSE, KADAVARAM, ALAYAMON, KARUKONE P.O., KOLLAM
DISTRICT, KERALA, PIN - 691306
BY ADV LUKE J CHIRAYIL
RESPONDENT/S:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN - 682031
BY ADV.
SRI.G.SUDHEER, PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
10.03.2025, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..1880/2025, THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:20689
BAIL APPL. NOS.1880 & 2504 OF 2025
3
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
B.A.Nos.1880 & 2504 of 2025
-------------------------------
Dated this the 10th day of March, 2025
COMMONORDER
These bail applications are connected and therefore, I
am disposing of these cases by a common order.
2. Petitioners in these bail applications are
accused Nos.4 and 6 in Crime No.1232/2024 of Anchal Police
Station. The above case is registered against the petitioners
and others alleging offences punishable under Sections 22(c),
27(A) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985 (for short NDPS Act).
3. The prosecution case is like this; the 1st
accused was found in possession of 3.550 grams of MDMA on
25.11.2024. During the investigation of this case, it was found
that accused Nos.1 to 6 conspired together to sell MDMA for
profit. On 17.11.2024, accused Nos.1, 2, 3 and 6 gathered at
Mahal Bar Hotel at Anchal and conspired to purchase MDMA.
At that night, accused Nos.1 and 3 communicated via Whats
2025:KER:20689
BAIL APPL. NOS.1880 & 2504 OF 2025
App chat to enquire about the price of MDMA and finalize
their decision to buy it for sale. It is alleged that, all accused
procured 80.21 grams of MDMA for the purpose of sale. Thus,
the accused committed the offence is the allegation.
4. Heard Adv.Luke.J.Chirayil and the Public
Prosecutor.
5. Adv.Luke.J. Chirayil argued the case in detail.
Adv.Luke submitted that there is absolutely no evidence to
connect the 6th accused in this case. He takes me through the
remand report of the 6th accused and submitted that, the 6th
accused is falsely implicated in this case without any
material. It is also submitted by Adv.Luke that there is only
some monetary transaction between the accused and the
same is taken as a material against the 6 th accused. The
counsel submitted that petitioner is an LIC agent. The 3 rd
accused was the driver of the petitioner. There was some
money transaction between them. The same is taken as a
ground to connect the petitioners in a grievous case. It is also
submitted that except the confession of the co-accused, there
is no other evidence to connect the petitioners with the case.
2025:KER:20689
BAIL APPL. NOS.1880 & 2504 OF 2025
Adv.Luke also relied the order dated 31.05.2024 in B.A
No.3592/2024 and also the order dated 13.07.2023 in B.A
No.2776/2023.
6. Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the bail
application. He submitted that the petitioners in these bail
applications are actively involved in these cases and Section
29 of NDPS Act is also alleged against the petitioners.
Hence, it is submitted that, the allegation is that the
petitioners were found in possession of commercial quantity
of MDMA. Hence, Section 37 of the NDPS Act is also attracted.
7. This Court considered the contention of the
learned counsel for the petitioners and the Public Prosecutor.
The case was heard in detail on 06.03.2025. When Adv.Luke
submitted that there is no material against the petitioner in
B.A No.1880/2025, this Court directed the Public Prosecutor to
file a statement about the material against the petitioner. A
statement is filed by the Police Inspector Anchal Police Station
on 19.02.2025. This Court perused the same. Admittedly, the
investigation of the case is going on. Petitioners were only
arrested on 05.02.2024. The counsel for the petitioners
2025:KER:20689
BAIL APPL. NOS.1880 & 2504 OF 2025
argued the case on merit and submitted that there is no
material to connect the petitioners with the Crime. But, after
going through the report submitted by the Inspector of Police,
Anchal, I am of the considered opinion that, this is not a case
in which there is no absolutely no material against the
petitioners. There are some circumstances found out by the
investigating officer. But, the investigation is going on. In
such circumstances, I do not want to make any observation
about the same. When a case is under investigation, this
Court cannot conclude that there is reasonable ground to
show that the petitioners did not committed the offence and
they will not commit the offence. Section 37 of the NDPS Act
is extracted hereunder:
" Section 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 he
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--
2025:KER:20689
BAIL APPL. NOS.1880 & 2504 OF 2025
(i) The Public Prosecutor has been given an
opportunity to oppose the application for such release,
and
(ii) Where the Public Prosecutor opposes the
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."
8. After going through Section 37 of the NDPS
Act and also the report submitted by the Investigating Officer,
I am of the considered opinion that, this is not a fit case in
which, this Court can grant bail. The contentions raised by the
petitioners are left open. The petitioners can raise these
contentions after final report is filed. After final report is filed,
petitioners can file a fresh application before the Jurisdictional
Court raising all these contentions and if such a bail
application is filed, Jurisdictional Court will consider the same
in accordance with law.
2025:KER:20689
BAIL APPL. NOS.1880 & 2504 OF 2025
With the above observation, these bail applications
are dismissed.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JUDGE
SSG
