Kerala High Court
Jibin vs State Of Kerala on 25 March, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
2025:KER:25359
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
TUESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 4TH CHAITHRA, 1947
BAIL APPL. NO. 3999 OF 2025
CRIME NO.117/2023 OF KOLLENGODE POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 17.10.2024 IN BAIL APPL. NO.8389
OF 2024 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.3:
JIBIN
AGED 24 YEARS, S/O BABU, GIRIJA MANDIRAM,
THETTICHIRA, PERUR, TKMC POST, KOLLAM.,
PIN - 691 005.
BY ADV
C.S.SUMESH
RESPONDENTS/STATE & SHO:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM., PIN - 682
031.
2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
KOLLENGODE POLICE STATION KOLLENGODE,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT., PIN - 678 506.
BY ADV
NOUSHAD K.A., SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 25.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:25359
B.A No.3999 of 2025
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
B.A.No.3999 of 2025
-------------------------------
Dated this the 25th day of March, 2025
ORDER
This Bail Application is filed under Section 483 of
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
2. Petitioner is the accused in Crime
No.117/2023 of Kollengode Police Station. The above
case is registered against the petitioner alleging offence
punishable under Section 22(c) of Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, NDPS Act).
3. The prosecution case is that, the accused
Nos.1 to 5 were arrested on 13.02.2023 at 5.30 p.m. It is
also alleged that 88.88 gram of MDMA was seized. Now it
is revealed that the contraband seized are
Methamphetamine and MDMA. The petitioner is in
custody from 13.02.2023.
2025:KER:25359
4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the
Public Prosecutor.
5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted
that the petitioner is in custody for two years and one
month. The trial of the case is started, but it will take
time to complete the trial. The counsel submitted that in
the light of 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] , the petitioner is entitled bail. The Public
Prosecutor opposed the bail application and submitted
that it is a case in which commercial quantity of
Methamphetamine and MDMA are seized from the
petitioner. Therefore the rigour under Section 37 of the
NDPS Act is attracted.
2025:KER:25359
6. This court considered the contentions of
the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. Admittedly the
petitioner is in custody for the last two years and one
month. The co-accused were already released on bail by
this Court as per Annexures 7 and 8. 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."
7. In Hasanujjaman's case (supra), the Apex
Court considered a case in which the accused were in
2025:KER:25359
custody for one year and four months. In that case also
the contraband seized is commercial quantity. Even then
the Apex Court granted bail.
8. In Nitish Adhikary's case (supra), the Apex
Court observed like this:-
"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."
9. Keeping in mind the above dictum, this
Court considered the contentions of the petitioner. The
petitioner is in custody for more than two years and one
month. Indefinite incarceration of the petitioner is not
necessary especially when the trial is not started even
after two years. The rights the accused under Article 21
of the Constitution of India is to be protected. Considering
the facts and circumstances of the case, I think the
2025:KER:25359
petitioner can be released on bail after imposing
stringent conditions.
Therefore, this Bail Application is allowed with the
following directions:
1. Petitioner shall be released on bail on
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 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
2025:KER:25359
dissuade him/her 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 which he is suspected.
5. The observations and findings in this
order is only for the purpose of
deciding this bail application. The
principle laid down by this Court in
Anzar Azeez v. State of Kerala
[2025 SCC OnLine KER 1260] is
applicable in this case also.
6. If any of the above conditions are
violated by the petitioner, the
2025:KER:25359
jurisdictional Court can cancel the bail
in accordance to law, even though the
bail is granted by this Court. The
prosecution and the victim are 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
AMR
