High Court of KeralaSingle JudgePetition allowed; anticipatory bail granted to ...

Ajay Thomas v. State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:BAIL APPL. NO. 2346 OF 2023

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • A. Badharudeen
Judgment Date
2023-03-12
Court Decision / Holding
In the result, the petition stands allowed. The petitioner Ajay Thomas is enlarged on anticipatory bail on the following conditions: surrender before the Investigating Officer within ten days; the IO may question for two days between 10:00 AM to 3:00 PM; on arrest, produce before Special Court on the date of arrest; the Special Court shall release on bail on executing bond for Rs. 50,000 with two sureties; petitioner shall cooperate with investigation, be available for interrogation on Wednesdays for two months, shall not intimidate witnesses, and shall not commit any offence during the currency of bail.
Final Disposition
Petition allowed; anticipatory bail granted to the petitioner with conditions.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Ajay Thomas

Respondents

  • The State of Kerala represented by the Public Prosecutor
  • The Excise Inspector, Excise Range Office, Changanacherry, Puzhavath, Changanacherry P.O., Kottayam

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Johnson Gomez
  • • S. Biju (Kizhakkanelam)
  • • Sanjay Johnson
  • • John Gomez
  • • Arun Johny
  • • Deebu R.
  • • Abin Jacob Mathew

Counsels for Respondents

  • • P. G. Manu, Sr. Public Prosecutor

Case Synopsis & Summary

Ajay Thomas, the third accused in Crime No.40/2022 of the Changanacherry Excise Range Office, moves this High Court for anticipatory bail under the NDPS Act. The prosecution alleges that around 6:00 PM on 25.09.2022, based on secret information, the first accused was found in possession of 1.540 kg of ganja inside a scooter at Bharat Motors showroom in Changanacherry. It is further alleged that 30 grams of ganja were recovered from the first accused during body search, and 1.51 kg was seized from the unregistered scooter kept at the showroom, intended for sale. The petitioner is said to have been involved in keeping or assisting in the sale of ganja through Subin, who allegedly disclosed Ajay’s involvement. The petitioner contends that there is no material linking him to the offence; the only incriminating piece is the confession of the first accused; the recovery entries show hearsay-like recitals and no direct material tying him to possession or control of the contraband. The State contends that information was recorded under Section 42(1) of the NDPS Act and that the investigation should proceed unobstructed; disclosure of identity and involvement was suggested by secret information. The court acknowledges the secret information and some surrounding indicators but notes the lack of direct nexus between the petitioner and the contraband. Consequently, the court, while ensuring investigation, grants anticipatory bail with stringent conditions including surrender, bond, two sureties, and cooperation for interrogation, and prohibiting witness intimidation.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985Section 60(3) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985Section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985Section 42(1) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that he is the third accused in Crime No.40/2022 with no supporting material linking him to the alleged offence. The sole incriminating evidence is the confession of the first accused and hearsay statements in the recovery mahazar; no material demonstrates possession, control, or nexus with Bharat Motors showroom. Therefore, anticipatory bail should be granted subject to reasonable conditions to ensure fair investigation.

Contentions of Respondents

The State argues that the information leading to the case was recorded under Section 42(1) of the NDPS Act and the investigation must proceed. It asserts involvement of the petitioner through information about Subin and Ajay’s alleged role in handling ganja; allowing bail would hamper investigation and interference with evidence.

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 Ajay Thomas 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 A. BADHARUDEEN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 12[TH] DAY OF APRIL 2023 / 22ND CHAITHRA, 1945** **BAIL APPL. NO. 2346 OF 2023** **CRIME NO.40/2022 OF EXCISE RANGE OFFICE, CHANGANACHERRY** **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.3:** **AJAY THOMAS AGED 21 YEARS S/O ALBERT KURIAN@BENNY NARAKATHARA KARA, KAVALAM, KUTTANAD, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688506 BY ADVS. JOHNSON GOMEZ S.BIJU (KIZHAKKANELA) SANJAY JOHNSON JOHN GOMEZ ARUN JOHNY DEEBU R. ABIN JACOB MATHEW** ## **RESPONDENT:** **1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 2 THE EXCISE INSPECTOR EXCISE RANGE OFFICE, CHANGANACHERRY, PUZHAVATH, CHANGANACHERRY P.O KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686101** **BY SRI.P.G.MANU, SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.04.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **BAIL APPL. NO. 2346 OF 2023** **2** ## **ORDER** Dated this the 12[th] day of March, 2023 The third accused in Crime No.40/2022 of Changanacherry Excise Range Office, Kottayam, is the petitioner herein and he seeks anticipatory bail in this petition. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor. 3. I have perused the relevant records placed by the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. The crux of the prosecution case is that, at about 6.00 p.m. on 25.9.2022, on the basis of a secret information received, the 1[st] accused was found in possession of 1.540 kgs of Ganja, inside the scooter kept in Yamaha showroom, by name, 'Bharat Motors'. On this premise, the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(B), 60(3) and 29 of the **BAIL APPL. NO. 2346 OF 2023** **3** Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, 'the NDPS Act' hereinafter). The further allegation is that, the third accused also involved in possessing contraband and the search was initiated on getting such a secret information. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner herein is arrayed as the third accused in this crime, without support of any materials and the one and only piece of evidence collected by the Investigating Officer, to implicate the petitioner, is the confession statement recorded as that of the first accused, from whom, 30 gm of Ganja was recovered at the time of his body search. It is submitted further that, even on meticulous reading of the recitals in the recovery mahazar, only hearsay information regarding possession and sale of Ganja by the petitioner, could be gathered. It is also submitted that, nothing recovered either from the person or **BAIL APPL. NO. 2346 OF 2023** ## **4** from the conscious possession or otherwise, from the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner is absolutely innocent and his complicity is not all established in this crime. 6. Whereas, the learned Public Prosecutor would submit that, this crime was registered, based on a secret information received and recording the same, in tune with the mandate of Section 42(1) of the NDPS Act. It is submitted that, a person who was not inclined to disclose his name and address, reached and informed that Subin, S/o.Bitty brought 4 kgs of Ganja in Changanacherry, on a nearby day and he used to store Ganja inside the scooter kept in Yamaha showroom, by name, 'Bharat Motors'. It was also informed that, Ajay is the person, who had been helping Subin to deal with Ganja. It is submitted further that, thereafter, when the Investigating Officer reached near the Yamaha showroom, a person with the features of Subin, ran away and another person identified him as **BAIL APPL. NO. 2346 OF 2023** **5** Subin. Thereafter, Ajay, who was present at the place of occurrence, in a frightened manner, was searched and 30 gm of Ganja was seized and on further search, 1.51 kg of Ganja seized from the unregistered scooter, meant for sale, at the showroom. Summarizing the argument, the learned Public Prosecutor would submit that, starting from recording of information till recovery of contraband, the involvement of the petitioner could be foreseen and in such a case, grant of anticipatory bail would spoil the investigation. 7. On meticulous reading of the materials available, it is true that a person, who even not ready to disclose his name and address, given information as to sale of Ganja, by the petitioner, by keeping the same in a scooter, kept at Yamaha showroom, Bharat Motors, near Changanacherry. It is true that in the mahazar, it is stated that, when the investigation team about to reach Yamaha showroom, a **BAIL APPL. NO. 2346 OF 2023** **6** person, with characteristics of Subin, ran away and another person present therein identified him as Subin. Further, Amal Kumar, whose name also recorded in the secret information, was present and was questioned. But nothing recovered from his possession. Thereafter, 30 gm of Ganja was recovered from his pocket and 1.51 kg of Ganja was recovered from the scooter kept at the showroom. Eventhough 1.51 kg of Ganja was seized from the scooter, no relevant materials available in the records of the prosecution to show the rational nexus between the contraband and the petitioner. Prosecution case does not suggest the relationship between the petitioner and 'Bharat Motors', where from the contraband was recovered from an unregistered (brand new) scooter. However, the same is not a reason to hold that the prosecution allegation, as such, is false and the allegation as to involvement of the petitioner in this crime may be true. Therefore, effective and impartial investigation must ## **BAIL APPL. NO. 2346 OF 2023** **7** go on and I leave the same to the domain of the Investigating Officer. 8. Since the factual aspects are as espoused, directing the petitioner to subject himself for interrogation, he can be enlarged on anticipatory bail. In the result, this petition stands allowed. The petitioner is enlarged on anticipatory bail, on the following conditions: - i. The petitioner shall surrender before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today and on such surrender, the Investigating Officer can question the petitioner for two days in between 10.00 a.m. to 3.00 p.m. In the event of his arrest, the Investigating Officer shall produce the petitioner before the Special Court on the date of arrest itself. - ii. On such production, the Special Court shall release the petitioner on bail, on executing bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) by himself and by **BAIL APPL. NO. 2346 OF 2023** **8** two solvent sureties, each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Special Court. iii. The petitioner shall co-operate with investigation and shall be made available for interrogation and for the purpose of investigation, as and when the Investigating Officer directs so. He shall meet the Investigating officer on all Wednesdays in between 10.00 a.m. to 3.00 p.m., for a period of two months. - iv. The petitioner, shall not, intimidate the witnesses or interfere with the investigation in any manner. - v. The petitioner shall not commit any offence during currency of this bail and any such involvement is a reason to cancel the bail hereby granted. ## **Sd/-** ## **A. BADHARUDEEN** **JUDGE** nkr