High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2024-03-14Bail granted; accused Amal Nair released on bai...

Amal Nair v. State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:B.A.No.1429 of 2024

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C.S. Dias
Judgment Date: 2024-03-14
Court Decision / Holding: The court allowed the bail application, holding that the petitioner is entitled to release on bail. The petitioner is to execute a bond for Rs.1,00,000 with two solvent sureties for similar amounts, subject to conditions: (i) appearance before the Investigating Officer every Saturday for two months or until final report, (ii) refrain from inducement or tampering with witnesses, (iii) refrain from any further offences while on bail, (iv) surrender passport if any, (v) power to cancel or modify bail for violations, (vi) investigations/recoveries may proceed even while on bail as per the principle cited (Sushila Aggarwal).
Final Disposition: Bail granted; accused Amal Nair released on bail with specified conditions.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Amal Nair

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• P.K. Varghese
• M.T. Sameer
• Dhanesh V. Madhavan
• Jerry Mathew
• K.R. Arun Krishnan
• Athul P
• Justin K.K.

Counsels for Respondents

• C. S. Hrithwik

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a bail application filed under Section 439 CrPC by Amal Nair, accused in Crime No.2639/2023 of Ernakulam Town South Police Station, invoking NDPS Act, for alleged possession of contraband (initially stated as MDMA) near Ravipuram Crematorium, Ernakulam. The matter arose after the accused was arrested on 11.11.2023. The prosecution’s case initially alleged possession of 14.75 grams of MDMA; however, the Chemical Analysis Report (dated 18.01.2024 from the Regional Chemical Examiner, Kakkanad) confirmed the contraband as Methamphetamine, an intermediate quantity, altering the perceived severity of the offence. The petitioner contends total innocence, falsely implicated, and argues that there is no material linking him to the crime; the accused has been in judicial custody since 11.11.2023 and that the investigation is practically complete with recovery already effected. The Public Prosecutor acknowledged the chemical analysis; though citing two prior cases as antecedents, he concedes the analysis shows Methamphetamine and that the contraband is intermediate quantity, which would influence the Section 37 NDPS rigour. After considering the facts, materials, and submissions, the Judge held that the rigour under Section 37 NDPS would not apply, and thus granted bail. The order permits release on a bond of Rs.1,00,000 with two solvent sureties, and imposes conditions including weekly appearances before the IO, non-tampering with witnesses, abstaining from new offences, passport surrender if available, and a provision for cancellation/modification of bail under law, with reference to Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Section 22(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985Section 37 of the NDPS Act

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends total innocence and false implication, claiming the contraband was not MDMA but Methamphetamine, an intermediate quantity. He has been in judicial custody since 11.11.2023; investigation is substantially complete and recovery has been effected. He asserts lack of material linking him to the crime and urges that Section 37 NDPS rigour should not apply given the nature of the contraband and the paucity of evidence. He seeks bail on grounds of liberty and the completion of investigation.

Contentions of Respondents

The State opposes bail on grounds of potential re-offending given criminal antecedents (two other similar cases). However, the State concedes the Chemical Analysis Report confirms Methamphetamine and not MDMA, indicating an intermediate quantity. The prosecution argues that, notwithstanding this, the accused’s antecedents and the NDPS offence warrant precaution, though the final analysis recognizes that the strict ‘rigor’ of Section 37 may not be necessary in this case.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another	2020 (1) KHC 663	Positive	The court cites this Supreme Court decision to justify that investigations and recoveries may proceed during bail and that bail conditions may be supplemented accordingly.

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 Amal Nair 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 ``` ``` THURSDAY, THE 14[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 24TH PHALGUNA, 1945 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 1429 OF 2024 ``` ``` CRIME NO.2639/2023 OF ERNAKULAM SOUTH POLICE STATION, ``` ## **`ERNAKULAM`** ``` AGAINST THE ORDER DATED IN SC NO.39 OF 2024 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM ``` ## **`PETITIONER/ACCUSED:`** ``` AMAL NAIR, AGED 38 YEARS S/O RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, PUTHENMADATHIL, LIG 767,PANAMPILLY NAGAR, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682036 ``` ``` BY ADVS. P.K.VARGHESE M.T.SAMEER DHANESH V.MADHAVAN JERRY MATHEW K.R.ARUN KRISHNAN ATHUL.P JUSTIN K.K. ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:`** ``` STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 ``` ``` BY SR PP SRI C S HRITHWIK ``` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` B.A.No.1429 of 2024 ## -:2:- Dated this the 14[th] day of March, 2024 ## **O R D E R** The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the sole accused in Crime No.2639/2023 of the Ernakulam Town South Police Station, Ernakulam, registered against him, for allegedly committing the offence under Section 22(c)of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short, ‘NDPS Act’). The petitioner was arrested on 11.11.2023. 2. The crux of the prosecution case is that; on 10.11.2023, at around 18.00 hours, the accused was found in possession of 14.75 grams of MDMA in a car bearing No.KL-07-CC-20 near Ravipuram Crematorium, Ernakulam. The contraband was seized ## B.A.No.1429 of 2024 ## -:3:- from the conscious possession of the accused, then and there at the spot. Thus, the accused has committed the above offence. 3. Heard Sri. P.K. Varghese, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. C.S. Hrithwik, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusation levelled against him. He has been falsely implicated in the crime. There is no material to link the petitioner with the above crime. Notwithstanding the other contentions raised in the application, the petitioner has reliably learnt that the contraband that was allegedly seized from the petitioner is not MDMA but only Methamphetamine. Therefore, the contraband is of an intermediate B.A.No.1429 of 2024 ## -:4:- quantity. The petitioner has been in judicial custody since 11.11.2023, the investigation in the case is practically complete, and recovery has been effected. Therefore, the petitioner's further detention is not necessary. Hence, the application may be allowed. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. He contended that the petitioner has criminal antecedents, since he is involved in two other cases of similar nature. If the petitioner is released on bail, there is every likelihood of him committing a similar offence. Nonetheless, he conceded to the fact that, as per the Chemical Analysis Report of the Regional Chemical Examiner’s Laboratory, Kakkanad, Ernakulam, dated 18.01.2024, it turned out that the contraband is Methamphetamine and not MDMA. Therefore, the contraband is of an intermediate quantity. B.A.No.1429 of 2024 -:5:- 6. On an anxious consideration of the facts, the materials placed on record, the rival submissions made across the Bar, especially taking note of the fact that the contraband article that was allegedly seized from the petitioner is Methamphetamine and not MDMA as initially alleged by the prosecution, that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 11.11.2023, that the investigation in the case is complete and the recovery has been effected, not-withstanding the fact that the petitioner is involved in two other cases, on considering that the rigour under Section 37 of the Act will not apply, I am of the view that the petitioner’s further detention is unnecessary. Hence, I hold that the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail. In the result, the application is allowed, by ## B.A.No.1429 of 2024 ## -:6:- 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 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; ## B.A.No.1429 of 2024 -:7:- - (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. - (vi) Applications for deletion/modification of the bail conditions shall be filed and entertained before 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** B.A.No.1429 of 2024 -:8:- **Delhi) and another** [2020 (1) KHC 663]. Sd/- **C.S.DIAS,JUDGE** mtk/14.03.24 B.A.No.1429 of 2024 ## -:9:- ## **`APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 1429/2024`** ``` PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE 1TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 06.12.2023 INCRL.MCNO.3450/2023OFTHE HONOURABLE SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM ANNEXURE 2CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12.02.2024 IN CRL.MC NO.04/2024 OF THE HONOURABLE SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM ```