C.S.Dias, J
1. The application is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, by the sole accused in Crime No.965/2024 of the Irinjalakuda Police Station, Thrissur, which is registered against him for allegedly committing the offence punishable under Section 22(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The petitioner was remanded to judicial custody on 21.07.2024.
2. The crux of the prosecution case is that: on 20.07.2024, at 20:15 hours, the accused was found in conscious possession of 0.830 grams of MDMA. He was arrested on the spot with the contraband article. Thus, the accused has committed the above offence.
3. Heard; Smt.M.M.Deepa, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt.Seetha S., the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent of the accusations leveled against him. There is no material to substantiate the petitioner’s culpability in the crime. The Investigating Officer has deliberately implicated the petitioner as an accused. In any given case, the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last more than three months, the investigation in the case is complete, the charge sheet has been filed. Moreover, the contraband involved in the case is of an intermediate quantity. Therefore, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.
5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. She submitted that the petitioner is involved in Crime No.761/2024 of the Mala Police Station, Thrissur, for being in possession of a commercial quantity of contraband. If the petitioner is enlarged on bail, there is every likelihood of him committing a similar offence. Therefore, the application may be dismissed.
6. The prosecution case is that, the petitioner was found in conscious possession of 0.830 grams of MDMA. Indisputably, the contraband involved in the case is of an intermediate quantity. Therefore, the rigour under Section 37 of the Act does not apply to the facts of the case. Hence, merely because the petitioner has an antecedents, the same cannot be treated as a ground to deny bail to the petitioner.
7. After bestowing my anxious consideration to the facts, the rival submissions made across the Bar, and the materials placed on record, particularly on considering the fact that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last more than 90 days, the investigation in the case is complete, and the charge sheet has been filed, and that the contraband involved in the case is of an intermediate quantity, I am of the firm view that the petitioner’s further detention is unnecessary. Hence, I am inclined to allow the application, but subject to stringent conditions.
In the result, the application is allowed, by directing the petitioner to be released on bail on him executing 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 court having jurisdiction, which shall be subject to the following conditions:
(i) The petitioner shall appear before the Trial Court as and when directed;
(ii) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or procure 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 or tamper with the evidence in any manner, whatsoever;
(iii)The petitioner shall not commit any offence while he is on bail;
(iv) The petitioner shall surrender his passport, if any, before the jurisdictional court at the time of execution of the bond. If he has no passport, he shall file an affidavit to the effect before the jurisdictional court on the date of execution of the bond;
(v) In case of violation of any of the conditions mentioned above, the jurisdictional court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation of bail, if any filed, and pass orders on the same, in accordance with law.
(vi) Applications for deletion/modification of the bail conditions shall be moved and entertained by the jurisdictional court.
(vii) Needless to mention, it would be well within the powers of the Investigating Officer to investigate the matter and, if necessary, to effect recoveries on the information, if any, given by the petitioner even while the petitioner is on bail as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal v. State(NCT of Delhi) and Anr.[2020 (1) KHC 663].
