# **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`**
## **`PRESENT`**
```
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
```
```
MONDAY, THE 15[TH] DAY OF JANUARY 2024 / 25TH POUSHA, 1945
```
```
CRL.MC NO. 110 OF 2024
```
```
CRIME NO.391/2022 OF Kasaba Police Station, Palakkad, Palakkad
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT CRMP 5721/2023 OF DISTRICT COURT &
```
```
SESSIONS COURT, PALAKKAD
```
## **`PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/ACCUSED NO.1:`**
```
AMAL MOHAMMED ASHRAF
AGED 26 YEARS
S/O ASHRAF P HAMSA, ASHRAF NIVAS, PERUMBAIKKADU P.O,
KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686016
```
```
BY ADVS.
THOMAS J.ANAKKALLUNKAL
JAYARAMAN S.
ANUPA ANNA JOSE KANDOTH
SNEHA ELSA JOSEPH
```
## **`RESPONDENT:`**
```
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
```
## **`OTHER PRESENT:`**
```
SRI. M.C. ASHI (PP)
```
```
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
15.01.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
```
```
CRL.MC NO. 110 OF 2024
```
```
2
```
## BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
----------------------------------------Crl.M.C No. 110 of 2024 ---------------------------------------Dated this the 15[th] day of January, 2024
## ORDER
Petitioner is the 1[st] accused in Crime No. 391 of 2022 of Kasaba Police Station, Palakkad. By the impugned order dated 29-11-2023, the Crl.M.P.No.5721 of 2023, the learned Session Judge allowed the request of the prosecution to extend the custody of the petitioner for a further 180 days as per Section 36A (4) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, ( for short, ‘the Act’) since the investigation had not been completed.
2. The prosecution alleged that 124.935 kgs of Ganja were found abandoned on 03-06-2022 by certain unknown persons and thereby committing the offences alleged. During the course of the investigation, petitioner was arrested on 05-06-2023 and he remains in custody since then. On 21-11-2023, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted a report under Section 36A(4) of the Act stating that the investigation is not yet over and that custody of the petitioner is to be extended for a further period of six months.
```
CRL.MC NO. 110 OF 2024
```
```
3
```
3. The learned Public Prosecutor in its report stated that accused 1 to 5 had conspired and proceeded in two vehicles to Vishakapatanam and purchased huge quantities of ganja. While transporting them to Kerala, one of the vehicles met with an accident on 02-06-2022 at Salem, and the entire contraband was shifted to another vehicle. Thereafter, accused 1 and 2 were intercepted at the Walayar toll plaza by the Excise Enforcement and Anti-Narcotic State Squad. The report further states as follows:-
“ _Thereafter while proceeding towards Walayar Toll Plaza the same was intercepted by Excise Enforcement & Anti Narcotic State Squad and when an Excise Officer named Subin was examining the first vehicle on the convoy, ie., KL 05 AV 2235, after getting into it, the said vehicle barged through the line barrier of the toll plaza and the Excise Officials successfully detained the second vehicle ie., KL 05 AA 1551, and after effecting the seizure of Ganja, registered a crime in the Palakkad Excise Range as Cr.28/2022 U/s.20(b) (ii) (B), 25, 29 of NDPS Act. Another crime is also seen registered by the Walayar Police Station as Cr.238/2022 U/s. 332, 392 r/w 34 for forcefully taking one of the Excise Officers inside the vehicle as aforesaid. It is subsequently turned out that the vehicle No.KL 05 AV 2235 which barged through the barricades pushed out the Excise Officer on the roadside and thereafter abandoned Ganja contained in several packets weighing 124.935 Kgms, as aforesaid at a place called kaithakuzhi, Elappully Panchayath.”_
```
CRL.MC NO. 110 OF 2024
```
```
4
```
4. Apart from the above, it was also stated that during the course of the investigation, Sections 27A and 29 of the Act also had to be invoked and that two of the accused are still absconding. The report also stated that the crime has interstate ramifications and require extensive investigation, for which a longer period of investigation was necessary.
5. On the basis of the above report, the learned Session Judge granted permission to extend the period for investigation by a further 180 days and also permitted the accused to be detained in custody.
6. Sri.Thomas J. Anakkallumkal, the learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the report of the Public Prosecutor is not sufficient to grant permission for extending the custody of the petitioner. Relying upon the judgment in _Ubaid A.M. v. State of Kerala 2022 (7) KHC 197_ it was pointed out that the extension of period of custody ought not have been granted.
7. Sri.Ashi M.C., the learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand, opposed the contentions and stated that the learned Session Judge has elaborately considered the reasons pointed out by the Public Prosecutor and granted an extension only since the circumstances so warranted.
```
CRL.MC NO. 110 OF 2024
```
```
5
```
## 8. I have considered the rival contentions.
9. The learned Session Judge has, in the impugned order, elaborately considered the circumstances and has specified the reasons for extending the period of custody of the petitioner. It was specifically mentioned that the investigation has not been completed and that some of the accused are yet to be arrested.
10. The reasons mentioned in the report submitted by the Public Prosecutor were found to be reasonable, and the involvement of other persons in financing the purchase of a narcotic drug is a material aspect requiring detailed investigation. The continuation of the investigation in light of the peculiar facts of the case was found to be essential. With the interstate ramifications pointed out by the Public Prosecutor, an extensive and exhaustive investigation was held to be essential.
11. It is true that in the decision in _Ubaid A.M. v. State of Kerala 2022 (7) KHC 197_ , a learned Single Judge of this Court had observed that the Prosecutor cannot act as a ‘Post Office’ while approaching the Court with an application for extension of custody. The said judgment observes that in the absence of sufficient reasons for granting extension of custody to the accused beyond 180 days, the right of the accused for statutory bail ought not to be denied.
```
CRL.MC NO. 110 OF 2024
```
```
6
```
12. In the instant case, the accused is alleged to have travelled to Visakhapatanam to purchase Ganja and thereafter transported the same in two vehicles to Kerala, and on their return they were intercepted near the Walayar check-post. Thereafter, they tried to escape with the Excise Officer inside the vehicle and later pushed him out from the moving vehicle and abandoned 124.935 kgms of Ganja on the roadside and escaped.
13. Taking note of the above circumstances and the nature of the order that has been issued by the learned Session Judge, I am of the view that there is no perversity surrounding the impugned order, and on the other hand, the learned Session Judge has elaborately considered all the aspects relating to the grant of an extension of custody.
14. Further the decision in _Ubaid A.M. v. State of Kerala 2022 (7) KHC 197_ as well as in _Dayal v. State of Kerala 2023 (2) KHC 564_ this Court has considered the twin aspects required under Section 36A (4) proviso for extending the period of investigation and custody. Though it was observed in the former judgment that the progress of the investigation and the specific reason for detention beyond 180 days ought to be spelled out in the report of the Public Prosecutor, in the latter decision, it was stated that it is not necessary to spell out every
```
CRL.MC NO. 110 OF 2024
```
```
7
```
minute detail of the investigation to satisfy the Court about the progress.
15. On a perusal of the report filed by the prosecutor and also on considering the impugned order in the light of the principles laid down in the above two decisions, I am satisfied that the order granting extension of time is legally tenable and does not warrant any interference.
Accordingly, I find no merit in this Crl.M.C and it is dismissed.
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
JUDGE
AJM
```
CRL.MC NO. 110 OF 2024
```
```
8
```
## **`APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 110/2024`**
## `PETITIONER ANNEXURES`
`Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 391/2022 OF KASABA POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 21.11.2023 NUMBERED AS CRL.M.P NO. 5721/2023 SUBMITTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR U/S 36A (4) OF NDPS ACT Annexure 3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29.11.2023 IN CRL.M.P NO. 5721/2023 PASSED BY THE COURT OF SESSIONS, PALAKKAD` TRUE COPY
