Adarsh v. State of Kerala

# **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS ``` ``` MONDAY, THE 29[TH] DAY OF JULY 2024 / 7TH SRAVANA, 1946 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 5378 OF 2024 ``` ``` CRIME NO. 46/2023 OF AGALI EXCISE RANGE OFFICE, PALAKKAD AGAINST THE ORDER DATED IN SC NO.415 OF 2024 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT, PALAKKAD ``` ## **`PETITIONER/FOURTH ACCUSED:`** ``` ADARSH, AGED 19 YEARS S/O MANIKANTAN,KUTHUKALLU, PAKKULAM, ATTAPADI TRIBAL TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678582 ``` ``` BY ADV K.V.SREE VINAYAKAN ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS/STATE/COMPLAINANT:`** |**`1`**|**`STATE OF KERALA,`**| |---|---| ||**`REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,`**| ||**`HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031`**| |**`2`**|**`EXCISE RANGE OFFICER,`**| ||**`EXCISE RANGE OFFICE, AGALI,`**| ||**`PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678581`**| ``` BY SRI C S HRITHWIK SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ``` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON ``` ``` 29.07.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ``` B.A. No.5378 of 2024 2 ## **Dated this the 29[th] day of July, 2024** ## **O R D E R** The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, ‘Code’) by the fourth accused in Crime No. 46/2023 of the Agali Excise Range Office, Palakkad, which is registered against the accused (four in number) for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 20(b) (ii)(c), 25 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ('Act', for short). The petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 13.11.2023. 2. The essence of the prosecution case is that; on 13.11.2023, at around 20.00 hours, the Detecting Officer had got secret information that the accused were dealing with the contraband article. Accordingly, when the Detecting Officer intercepted two vehicles bearing registration Nos. DL-7CG-4736 (Toyota Corolla Artis Car) B.A. No.5378 of 2024 3 and UP-37A-9786 (Toyota Fortuner Car) and conducted a search in the vehicles, 91 kg of ganja was seized from the first vehicle and 25.75 kg of ganja was seized from the second vehicle. The accused 1 and 2 were in the first vehicle, and the accused 3 and 4 were found in the second vehicle. The investigation has revealed that the accused 1 to 3 had hatched a conspiracy and had transported the contraband articles from the state of Andhra Pradesh. When they reached the state of Kerala, as the third accused did not know driving, he requested the fourth accused to drive the second vehicle. The fourth accused fully knowing that the contraband article was in the vehicle, consciously under took to drive the vehicle. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences. 3. Heard; Sri. K.V. Sree Vinayakan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. C.S.Hrithwik, the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner B.A. No.5378 of 2024 4 submitted that the petitioner is innocent of the accusations levelled against him. There is no material to substantiate the petitioner’s involvement in the crime. A reading of the First Information Report as well as the bail objection report filed by the Investigating Officer clearly reveal that the allegation of transporting the contraband from the state of Andhra Pradesh is only attributed against the accused 1 to 3. In any given case, the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last more than eight months, the investigation in the case is complete, recovery has been effected, and the final report has been laid. Hence, the application may be allowed. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. The Investigating Officer has filed a bail objection report, inter alia, contending that the accused 1 to 3 had hatched a conspiracy to transport the contraband articles from the state of Andhra Pradesh. When the Investigating Officer intercepted the vehicle, it B.A. No.5378 of 2024 5 was the petitioner who was driving the second vehicle from which 25.75 kg of ganja was seized. The petitioner was consciously aware that there was contraband in the vehicle. Since the contraband involved in the case is of a commercial quantity, the rigour under Section 37 of the Act applies to the facts of the case. Hence, the bail application may be dismissed. 6. The prosecution allegation against the petitioner is that he was found driving the second vehicle in which 25.75 kg of ganja was seized. It is further alleged that the accused had hatched a conspiracy to transport the contraband article from the state of Andhra Pradesh and sell it in the state of Kerala. Indisputably, the contraband involved in the case is of a commercial quantity. 7. The petitioner had filed a similar application before the Court of Session, Palakkad, which was dismissed by Annexure 1 order on the finding that the petitioner has not made out any ground to dilute the B.A. No.5378 of 2024 6 rigour under Section 37 of the Act. 8. Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, regulates the grant of bail in cases involving offences under the Act. It is profitable to extract Section 37, which reads as follows:. “37. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable.— (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (2 of 1974),— (a) every offence punishable under this Act shall be cognizable; (b) no person accused of an offence punishable for offences under Section 19 or Section 24 or Section 27-A and also for offences involving commercial quantity shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless— (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and (ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. (2) The limitations on granting of bail specified in clause (b) of sub-section (1) are in addition to the limitations under the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (2 of 1974) or any other law for B.A. No.5378 of 2024 7 the time being in force on granting of bail”. 9. A plain reading of the above provision demonstrates that a person accused of an offence under Sections 19, 24 and 27-A of the Act and also involving commercial quantity shall not be released on bail unless the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accused is not guilty and is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. Therefore, the power to grant bail to a person accused of committing an offence under the Act is subject to provisions contained under Sec.439 of the Code and parameters referred to above and on the accused satisfying the twin conditions under Sec.37 of the Act. 10. While interpreting ‘reasonable grounds’ prescribed under Section 37 of the Act, the Honourable Supreme Court in **Union of India v. Shiv Shanker Kesari** [(2007) 7 SCC 798] held as follows: “7. The expression used in Section 37(1)(b)(ii) is “reasonable grounds”. The expression means something B.A. No.5378 of 2024 8 more than prima facie grounds. It connotes substantial probable causes for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offence charged and this reasonable belief contemplated in turn points to existence of such facts and circumstances as are sufficient in themselves to justify recording of satisfaction that the accused is not guilty of the offence charged”. ## 11. In **State of Kerala and others v. Rajesh and** ## **others** [(2020) 12 SCC 122], the Honourable Supreme Court held as follows: “18. This Court has laid down broad parameters to be followed while considering the application for bail moved by the accused involved in the offences under the NDPS Act. In Union of India v. Ram Samujh [Union of India v. Ram Samujh, (1999) 9 SCC 429 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 1522] , it has been elaborated as under: “7. It is to be borne in mind that the aforesaid legislative mandate is required to be adhered to and followed. It should be borne in mind that in a murder case, the accused commits murder of one or two persons, while those persons who are dealing in narcotic drugs are instrumental in causing death or in inflicting death-blow to a number of innocent young victims, who are B.A. No.5378 of 2024 9 vulnerable; it causes deleterious effects and a deadly impact on the society; they are a hazard to the society; even if they are released temporarily, in all probability, they would continue their nefarious activities of trafficking and/or dealing in intoxicants clandestinely. Reason may be large stake and illegal profit involved. This Court, dealing with the contention with regard to punishment under the NDPS Act, has succinctly observed about the adverse effect of such activities in Durand Didier v. State (UT of Goa) [Durand Didier v. State (UT of Goa), (1990) 1 SCC 95 : 1990 SCC (Cri) 65] as under: (SCC p. 104, para 24) ‘24. With deep concern, we may point out that the organised activities of the underworld and the clandestine smuggling of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances into this country and illegal trafficking in such drugs and substances have led to drug addiction among a sizeable section of the public, particularly the adolescents and students of both sexes and the menace has assumed serious and alarming proportions in the recent years. Therefore, in order to effectively control and eradicate this proliferating and booming devastating menace, causing deleterious effects and deadly impact on the society as a whole, Parliament in its wisdom, has made B.A. No.5378 of 2024 10 effective provisions by introducing this Act 81 of 1985 specifying mandatory minimum imprisonment and fine.’ 8. To check the menace of dangerous drugs flooding the market, Parliament has provided that the person accused of offences under the NDPS Act should not be released on bail during trial unless the mandatory conditions provided in Section 37, namely, (i) there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such offence; and (ii) that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail are satisfied. The High Court has not given any justifiable reason for not abiding by the aforesaid mandate while ordering the release of the respondentaccused on bail. Instead of attempting to take a holistic view of the harmful socioeconomic consequences and health hazards which would accompany trafficking illegally in dangerous drugs, the court should implement the law in the spirit with which Parliament, after due deliberation, has amended.” 19. The scheme of Section 37 reveals that the exercise of power to grant bail is not only subject to the limitations contained under Section 439 CrPC, but is also subject to the limitation placed by Section 37 which commences with non obstante clause. The operative part of the said section is in the negative form prescribing the B.A. No.5378 of 2024 11 enlargement of bail to any person accused of commission of an offence under the Act, unless twin conditions are satisfied. The first condition is that the prosecution must be given an opportunity to oppose the application; and the second, is that the court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence. If either of these two conditions is not satisfied, the ban for granting bail operates. 20. The expression “reasonable grounds” means something more than prima facie grounds. It contemplates substantial probable causes for believing that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence. The reasonable belief contemplated in the provision requires existence of such facts and circumstances as are sufficient in themselves to justify satisfaction that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence. In the case on hand, the High Court seems to have completely overlooked the underlying object of Section 37 that in addition to the limitations provided under the CrPC, or any other law for the time being in force, regulating the grant of bail, its liberal approach in the matter of bail under the NDPS Act is indeed uncalled for. 21. We may further like to observe that the learned Single Judge has failed to record a finding mandated B.A. No.5378 of 2024 12 under Section 37 of the NDPS Act which is a sine qua non for granting bail to the accused under the NDPS Act”. 12. As observed in **Rajesh** 's case (supra), in addition to applying the rigour under Section 37 of the Act, the courts are also bound to follow the general parameters under Section 439 of the Code, while considering a bail application. 13. In **Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis** **Chatterjee** [(2010) 14 SCC 496], the Honourable Supreme Court has laid down the broad parameters for Courts while dealing with applications for bail in the following lines: “9.xxx xxx xxx However, it is equally incumbent upon the High Court to exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic principles laid down in a plethora of decisions of this Court on the point. It is well settled that, among other circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are: (i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the accusation; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of B.A. No.5378 of 2024 13 the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused; (vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail”. 14. Indisputably, the contraband involved in the case is of a commercial quantity. Therefore, the rigour under Section 37 of the Act applies to the facts of the case. 15. On an overall scrutiny of the facts, the rival submissions made across the Bar and the materials placed on record, and on comprehending the nature, seriousness and gravity of the accusations attributed against the petitioner, the potential severity of the punishment that can be imposed on him, the commercial quantity of the contraband involved in the case and the prima facie material that show the petitioner's involvement in the crime, I am not satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to hold that the petitioner is not B.A. No.5378 of 2024 14 guilty of the offence alleged against him and that he is not likely to commit a similar offence if he is enlarged on bail. The petitioner has not made out any valid ground to dilute the rigour under Section 37 of the Act. The application is meritless and it is only to be rejected. Resultantly, the application is dismissed. **Sd/-** **C.S.DIAS, JUDGE** mtk/29.07.2024