High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2024-02-26Bail Granted

Abdul Munavar v. State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:BAIL APPL. NO. 1331 OF 2024

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C.S. Dias
Judgment Date: 2024-02-26
Court Decision / Holding: The application is allowed. Bail granted on bond for Rs.1,00,000 with two solvent sureties for an equal sum. Conditions: (i) petitioner to appear before IO every Saturday for two months or until final report; (ii) no inducement or tampering with witnesses or evidence; (iii) shall not commit any offence while on bail; (iv) surrender of passport; (v) court may cancel or modify bail if conditions violated; (vi) other modifications allowed as per law, including possible recoveries; reliance on Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another.
Final Disposition: Bail Granted

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Abdul Munavar

Respondents

State of Kerala

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• P. Rakesh Thamban

Counsels for Respondents

• Smt Seetha S. (Senior Public Prosecutor)

Case Synopsis & Summary

Abdul Munavar, the first accused in Crime No. 534/2023 of Kasaragod Police Station, was arrested on 21.06.2023 in a case alleging possession and transport of 12 grams of MDMA in a car. The offences under Sections 22(b) and 29 of the NDPS Act were invoked. An application under Section 439 CrPC was heard on 26 February 2024. The petitioner contends that he has been falsely implicated, that the investigation is complete, and that the chemical analysis report now shows the contraband as Methamphetamine, not MDMA, reducing the severity and quantity concerns; the 2nd and 3rd accused have already been released on bail. The Prosecution, while opposing bail, concedes the corrected chemical analysis and recognizes that the accused have no criminal antecedents; it argues however that there is a likelihood of reoffending. After considering the record and the chemical analysis dated 22.01.2024, the court holds that the contraband is an intermediate quantity and that the petitioner’s continued detention is unnecessary. The application is allowed; the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on a bond of Rs.1,00,000 with two solvent sureties each for the like amount, subject to conditions: periodic appearance before the IO, no inducement or tampering, no commission of any offence while on bail, surrender of passport, and liberty to seek modification or cancellation of bail in accordance with law; reliance on Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Sections 22(b) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated and is totally innocent. He submits that the investigation is complete and the final report has been laid. The chemical analysis report dated 22.01.2024 shows the contraband as Methamphetamine, not MDMA, thereby classifying it as an intermediate quantity. The court has already released the 3rd accused on bail in view of the chemical analysis report, and the 2nd accused has similarly been granted bail. The petitioner asserts no criminal antecedents and urges that continued detention is unnecessary, particularly since the investigation is over and the contraband is not MDMA. Relying on the absence of prior offences and on the revised analysis, the petitioner seeks bail as a just, proportionate remedy that would not impede ongoing investigation.

Contentions of Respondents

The Public Prosecutor opposed bail, arguing that notwithstanding completion of investigation there remains a likelihood of the petitioner committing similar offences. She concedes that the chemical analysis shows Methamphetamine rather than MDMA and notes that the 2nd and 3rd accused have already been released on bail. The prosecution emphasizes the gravity and nature of NDPS offences and urges caution in releasing an accused while the fear of reoffending or tampering with evidence persists. She also underscores the need to balance individual liberty with public interest, and to ensure that conditions attached to any bail order are adequate to prevent evasion, tampering, or repeat offences. She argued that the court should consider the broader context and may deny bail accordingly, even in light of revised analysis. Ultimately, she invites the court to impose stringent conditions if bail is granted.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another	2020 (1) KHC 663	Mentioned Only	Cited to support the course of action permitted by the Supreme Court on bail-related matters and officer power, not a binding ruling in this case.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Abdul Munavar v. State of Kerala and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS`** ``` MONDAY, THE 26[TH] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 7TH PHALGUNA, 1945 BAIL APPL. NO. 1331 OF 2024 ``` ``` CRIME NO.534/2023 OF KASARAGOD POLICE STATION, KASARGOD AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT SC 937/2023 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT - II, KASARAGOD / II ADDITIONAL MACT, KASARAGODE ``` ## **`PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED:`** ``` ABDUL MUNAVAR AGED 24 YEARS S/O KAREEM R/AT TAJ APARTMENT, RAHMATH NAGAR, 4TH MILE, CHENGALA,KASARAGOD KERALA, PIN - 671541 ``` ``` BY ADV P.RAKESH THAMBAN ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:`** ``` STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 ``` ## **`OTHER PRESENT:`** ## **`SR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT SEETHA S`** ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` **B.A. No.1331 of 2024** ``` 2 ``` ## **Dated this the 26[th] day of February, 2024** ## **O R D E R** The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the first accused in Crime No.534/2023 of the Kasaragod Police Station, Kasaragod, registered against the accused (three in number) for allegedly committing the offences under Sections 22(b) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short, ‘NDPS Act’). The petitioner was arrested on 21.06.2023. 2. The crux of the prosecution case, is that; on 21.6.2023 at around 9.30 hours, the accused 1 to 3 were found in conscious possession and transporting 12 grams of MDMA in a car bearing No. KL 13 AC 4747 in front of ``` 3 ``` ## **B.A. No.1331 of 2024** Kundumbasree Women Auditorium, Pulikkunnu, Kasaragod Thus, the accused have committed the above offences. 3. Heard Sri. P.Rakesh Thamban, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt.Seetha S. the learned Senior Public Prosecutor. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the crime and he is totally innocent of the accusation levelled against him. The petitioner has been in judicial custody since 21.6.2023. The investigation in the case is complete and the final report has been laid. Moreover, in the chemical analysis report, it has turned out that the contraband is Methamphetamine and not MDMA. This Court has already released the 3[rd] accused on bail as per order in B.A. No.11376/2023, in view of the chemical analysis report. Likewise, the second accused has also ``` 4 ``` ## **B.A. No.1331 of 2024** been released on bail by the Trial Court. Therefore, the petitioner’s further detention is unnecessary. Hence, the application may be allowed. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. She contended that although the investigation in the case is complete, there is every likelihood of the petitioner committing similar offences. Hence, the application may be dismissed. Nonetheless, she conceded to the fact that in the chemical analysis report it has turned out that the contraband is Methamphetamine and not MDMA and also conceded to the fact that the accused 2 and 3 have been already released on bail. 6. The prosecution was lodged against the accused principally on the allegation that they were found in possession of 12 grams of 'MDMA', while jointly travelling in a car on 21.6.2023. It is on the basis of the said ``` 5 ``` ## **B.A. No.1331 of 2024** accusation, that the petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody. It has now come on record as per the chemical analysis report dated 22.1.2024 issued by the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Kannur, that the contraband article is 'Methamphetamine' and not 'MDMA' as initially alleged by the prosecution. Therefore, the contraband is only of an intermediate quantity. 7. After bestowing my anxious consideration to the facts, the rival submissions made across the Bar, and the materials placed on record, particularly the chemical analysis report dated 22.1.2024, which shows that the contraband allegedly seized is of an intermediate quantity, that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 21.6.2023, that the investigation in the case is complete, the recovery has been effected, and the petitioner has no criminal antecedents, I am of the view ``` 6 ``` ## **B.A. No.1331 of 2024** that the petitioner’s continued detention is unnecessary. Hence, I am inclined to allow the bail application. 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 Investigating Officer on every Saturday between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m for a period of two months or till the final report is filed, whichever is earlier. He shall also appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required; - (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 ``` 7 ``` ## **B.A. No.1331 of 2024** 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 court below at the time of execution of the bond. If he has no passport, he shall file an affidavit to the effect before the court below 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. ``` 8 ``` ## **B.A. No.1331 of 2024** (vi) Applications for deletion/modification of the bail conditions shall be moved and entertained by the court below. (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 another [2020 (1) KHC 663].** ``` SD/- ``` **C.S.DIAS, JUDGE** rmm/26/2/2024