[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Kashinath.S vs State Of Kerala on 13 February, 2026
2026:KER:13180
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JOBIN SEBASTIAN
FRIDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 24TH MAGHA, 1947
BAIL APPL. NO. 750 OF 2026
CRIME NO.12/2026 OF THRIKKUNNAPPUZHA POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 24.01.2026 IN CRMP NO.1 OF 2026 OF
DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT/RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY,
ALAPPUZHA
PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED:
KASHINATH.S
AGED 19 YEARS
S/O. SIVAPRASAD, EDAVEETTIL PUTHUVAL, MANGALAM MURI,
ARATTUPUZHA VILLAGE, KARTHIKAPPALLY TALUK, ALAPPUZHA,,
PIN - 690515
BY ADVS.
SRI.B.RENJITHKUMAR
SMT.A.DEEPTHI
SMT.CLARA SHERIN FRANCIS
SHRI.VYSHNAV S.
RESPONDENT/STATE:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
THRIKKUNNAPPUZHA POLICE STATION THROUGH THE PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN -
682031
SMT.SREEJI V., SR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
13.02.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A. No.750 of 2026
-2-
2026:KER:13180
ORDER
This petition seeking regular bail has been filed by the 2 nd accused
in Crime No.12 of 2026 of Thrikkunnappuzha Police Station, Alappuzha
District registered alleging commission of offences punishable under
Sections 8(c), 22(b) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985.
2. The prosecution allegation in this case is that on 03.01.2026
at 11.25 p.m., the 1st accused was found possessing 7 grams of MDMA
for the purpose of sale in violation of the provisions of the NDPS Act and
that it was the 2nd accused who helped the 1st accused in procuring the
contraband. Hence, the accused are alleged to have committed the
aforementioned offences.
3. I heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as
well as the learned Public Prosecutor and also perused the available
records.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
allegation levelled against the petitioner is baseless and the petitioner
was arrayed as an accused in this case on the basis of some
conjunctures and surmises. According to the learned counsel, even as
2026:KER:13180
per the prosecution allegation, no contraband was seized from the
possession of the petitioner, who is arrayed as the 2 nd accused in this
case. The learned counsel also highlighted the days of detention already
undergone by the petitioner while canvassing bail.
5. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail
application by highlighting the serious nature of the offence attributed
against the petitioner. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, the
source of the contraband is yet to be investigated, and the premature
granting of bail will thwart the investigation in this case which is in the
threshold.
6. The accusation that the petitioner was engaged in drug
pedaling activities along with the 1 st accused in this case cannot be
viewed lightly. A perusal of the available records indicates that the
accusation against the petitioner is prima facie well-founded. Anyhow, as
rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, no
contraband was seized from the possession of the petitioner who is
arrayed as the 2nd accused in this case. Even as per the prosecution
allegation, it was from the possession of the 1 st accused that the
contraband was seized. Moreover, the petitioner was arrested in this case
on 03.01.2026 and since then, he has been under judicial custody. As
2026:KER:13180
part of the investigation, he has been granted police custody as well. The
investigation in this case appears to have progressed substantially and is
now on the verge of completion. Likewise, no criminal antecedents are
seen pointed out against the petitioner. I am not unmindful of the
submission made by the learned Public Prosecutor that the source of
contraband is yet to be traced out. However, I am at a loss to understand
how the continued detention of the petitioner would facilitate the
investigation regarding the source of the contraband, particularly since
sufficient time has been obtained by the investigating agency to
investigate on that aspect. Hence, having regard to the days of detention
already undergone by the petitioner and the present stage of
investigation, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner subject to the
following conditions;
1. Petitioner shall execute a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One
lakh 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 on every Monday between 10 a.m. and 11 a.m.
for a period of three months or until the final report is
filed, whichever occurs first.
3. 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
2026:KER:13180
facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing
such facts to the Court or to any police officer.
4. Petitioner shall not leave India without permission of the
jurisdictional Court.
5. Petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail.
6. If the petitioner violates any of the above conditions, the
investigating officer is at liberty to file an appropriate
application for cancellation of bail before the
jurisdictional court, and if such an application is filed, the
jurisdictional court can pass appropriate orders
irrespective of the fact that this order is passed by this
Court.
Sd/-
JOBIN SEBASTIAN
JUDGE
SKP
2026:KER:13180
APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. NO. 750 OF 2026
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:
ANNEXURE-A1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 12/2026 OF
THRIKKUNNAPPUZHA POLICE STATION
ANNEXURE-A2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24.1.2026 IN
CRL.M.P NO. 1/2026 BEFORE THE SESSIONS COURT,
ALAPPUZHA
RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: NIL
TRUE COPY
P.A. TO JUDGE
