Abdul Nissar v. State of Kerala
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- C. S. Dias
- Judgment Date
- 2024-01-10
- Court Decision / Holding
- The application is allowed; Abdul Nissar is ordered to be released on bail on a bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with two solvent sureties. Conditions include: appearance before the Investigating Officer as required; prohibition on inducing witnesses or tampering with evidence; prohibition on committing any offence while on bail; surrender of passport if any; ability to seek modification or cancellation of bail upon breach; and cognizance that the Investigating Officer may undertake further recoveries as permitted by law and as per the principle laid down in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another. The bail is granted after considering that co-accused have been granted bail and the petitioner’s custody duration and lack of antecedents justify dilution of the Sec. 37 rigour.
- Final Disposition
- Allowed; bail granted to the fifth accused on specified conditions.
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- Abdul Nissar
Respondents
- State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala
- Assistant Excise Commissioner, Excise Crime Branch, Ernakulam North, Ernakulam
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • Gayathri Muraleedharan
- • Arathy P.
Counsels for Respondents
- • Smt.Seetha.S
- • Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala
Case Synopsis & Summary
Abdul Nissar, the fifth accused in Crime No. 40/2022 of the Excise Range Office, Muvattupuzha, applies for bail under Section 439 CrPC. The prosecution alleges that on 10.9.2022 five accused were found transporting 79.200 kgs of ganja in a lorry; it is stated that the contraband was supplied to the petitioner by the first to fourth accused, who procured it from the seventh; the sixth accused allegedly facilitated the purchase. The petitioner claims complete innocence and that he was abroad during the relevant period, supported by annexures indicating overseas employment and an arrest memo dated 21.07.2023. He has been in custody since 21.07.2023, more than 170 days, and has no criminal antecedents under the NDPS Act. According to the petitioner, accused 1-4 have already been enlarged on bail by the Sessions Court and this Court previously granted bail to the fourth accused in BA No. 7940/2023. The prosecution counters that the petitioner supplied the contraband by transmitting money to the seventh accused; final report filed on 03.01.2024 and charge framed; Sec. 37 NDPS rights must be strictly applied. After careful consideration, the court notes the co-accused are on bail and the investigation is complete; given the lack of antecedents and lengthy custody, the rigour of Sec. 37 is diluted. The court grants bail on condition of bond Rs.1,00,000 with two sureties, appearance before IO, no tampering, surrender of passport, and eligibility for cancellation if breached, while allowing recovery actions as per Sushila Aggarwal v. State.”
Provisions of Law Cited
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The petitioner submits his innocence and asserts that he was abroad for employment during the relevant period, supported by annexures including overseas travel records and arrest memo. He has no prior NDPS offences and has already remained in custody for about five months, during which co-accused were granted bail. The petitioner emphasizes that the investigation is complete and seeks bail on reasonable conditions, pointing to the bail grants already given to other accused as a factor mitigating the heavy restraint under Sec. 37. He is prepared to comply with conditions and cooperation with authorities to ensure the investigation proceeds without impairing the case.
Contentions of Respondents
The prosecution contends that the petitioner supplied the contraband by transferring money from accused 1-4 to the seventh accused, supported by a bank transaction record. Despite the completion of investigation and filing of the final report on 03.01.2024 and charges framed, the State argues that Sec. 37 NDPS must be rigorously applied due to the serious nature of the offence and the likelihood of further offences. It urges against dilution of rigour and for denial of bail on grounds of ongoing investigation’s need for coercive measures.
Cited Precedents (1)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another | 2020 (1) KHC 663 | Positive | Cited to support that investigative actions including recoveries may be undertaken by the police even when an accused is on bail, a principle invoked by the court to justify the bail conditions. |
Diagnostic Tool
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 Nissar 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.