High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2023-12-15Bail applications dismissed

BA Nos. 7624/2023 and 8737/2023: Arjun E K v. State of Kerala; Sherin N.S v. Union of India

Case / Petition Number:BA 7624/2023; BA 8737/2023

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Mohammed NIAS C.P.
Judgment Date: 2023-12-15
Court Decision / Holding: These applications are dismissed. The court finds materials to connect the petitioners with the crime and notes that commercial quantity triggers the stringent NDPS provisions, warranting denial of bail.
Final Disposition: Bail applications dismissed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Arjun E.K.
Sherin N.S.

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam
Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau, Zonal Unit, Kochi
Union of India represented by Special Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• P. Mohamed Sabah
• Libin Stanley Saipooja
• R. Gayathri Sadik
• Ismayil
• M. Mahin
• Hamza Alwin Joseph
• Nireesh Mathew

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri Rajagopalan Nair K.R., CGC
• Sri Navaneeth N. Nath
• Sri M.C. Ashi, PP
• Smt. T.V. Neema, Sr. PP

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a regular bail petition in two connected NDPS matters before a single judge of the Kerala High Court. Accused No.2 Arjun E.K. and Accused No.3 Sherin N.S. are alleged to have participated in a narcotics network that procured and transported amphetamine to Malappuram, via a courier from Bengaluru and through DTDC Express. The prosecution alleges that on 30 March 2023, a 99-gram contraband parcel was detected in a courier consigned by Arjun; the investigation’s voluminous statements portray Arjun (A-2) as the consignor and Sherin (A-3) as the person who procured drugs from a Bengaluru supplier, with Abdul Jaleel (A-1) coordinating shipments through Bengaluru to Kerala. The defense contends that there is no material connecting the petitioners to the contraband beyond a Rs. 500 courier payment; asserts contraband was mixed and rules were violated; and relies on a cited Supreme Court decision and another Court order to argue lack of prima facie evidence. The respondents counter that the voluminous, corroborated statements and the disclosed role of the petitioners establish involvement, and that commercial quantity engages the stringent provisions of the NDPS Act. Ultimately, the court finds prima facie involvement and, citing the commercial quantity, applies Section 37 of the NDPS Act, dismissing both bail applications.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 22(c) NDPS Act, 1985Section 29 NDPS Act, 1985Section 37 NDPS Act, 1985Section 439 CrPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Prima facie
Commercial quantity (NDPS)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The counsel for the petitioners submits that there is no material linking the accused with the crime beyond a Rs. 500 courier payment; argues that the contraband was mixed and that there is a violation of applicable rules. The argument emphasizes that, aside from the voluntary statements, there is no substantive evidence tying the petitioners to the drug shipment. Citing a Supreme Court decision in State by (NCB) Bengaluru and others v. Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta and others (2021 (1) KHC 853) and a prior order in BA No. 2776/2023, they contend that the material is insufficient for prima facie involvement to deny bail.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondent urges that the investigation shows a clear chain of involvement: Arjun E.K. (A-2) as consignor and Sherin N.S. (A-3) procuring drugs from a Bengaluru supplier with Abdul Jaleel (A-1) orchestrating shipments to Malappuram; the statements reveal repeated drug procurement and courier-based delivery; possession of a 99-gram amphetamine quantity constitutes a commercial quantity; given the voluminous, corroborated evidence, bail should be denied and the rigour of Section 37 NDPS Act should apply.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
State by (NCB) Bengaluru and others v. Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta and others	2021 (1) KHC 853	Mentioned Only	Cited by counsel and referenced by the court; does not appear to be treated as a binding authority or controlling precedent in the immediate analysis.

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 BA Nos. 7624/2023 and 8737/2023: Arjun E K v. State of Kerala; Sherin N.S v. Union of India 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 MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.** **FRIDAY, THE 15[TH] DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 24TH AGRAHAYANA, 1945** **BAIL APPL. NO. 7624 OF 2023** **CRIME NO.1/2023 OF NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU, KOCHI, ERNAKULAM** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2:** ARJUN E K, AGED 25 YEARS S/O. SASIDHARAN E K, EERAYINTHAZHAKUNI, KACHERY P.O, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673006 BY ADVS. P.MOHAMED SABAH LIBIN STANLEY SAIPOOJA R.GAYATHRI SADIK ISMAYIL M.MAHIN HAMZA ALWIN JOSEPH ## **RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT & STATE:** 1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031 2 INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, NARCOTIC CONTROL BUREAU, ZONAL UNIT, KOCHI-682030 SRI.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR.K.R., CGC SRI.NAVANEETH N. NATH SRI.M.C.ASHI, PP THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.12.2023, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..8737/2023, THE COURT ON 15.12.2023 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: -2- BA No. 7624 & 8737 of 2023 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.** **FRIDAY, THE 15[TH] DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 24TH AGRAHAYANA, 1945 BAIL APPL. NO. 8737 OF 2023** **CRIME NO.1/2023 OF NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU, KOCHI, Ernakulam** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.3:** SHERIN N.S, AGED 36 YEARS S/O.SURENDRANATH N.M, NAISSERIYIL HOUSE "SREEVALSAM", ONIYAPALAM, VALANCHERI P.O, KATTIPPARUTHI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676552 BY ADV NIREESH MATHEW ## **RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT & STATE:** UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU, ZONAL UNIT, COCHIN, REPRESENTED BY THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031 SRI.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR.K.R., CGC SRI.NAVANEETH N. NATH SMT.T.V.NEEMA, SR.PP THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.12.2023, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..7624/2023, THE COURT ON 15.12.2023 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: -3- BA No. 7624 & 8737 of 2023 ## **MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.J** **..................................................** **BA No. 7624 & 8737 of 2023** **........................................... Dated this the 15[th] day of December, 2023** ## **ORDER** These are applications for regular bail filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. The petitioners are accused Nos. 2 and 3 respectively in OR No.1/2023 of NCB Kochi, registered for offences punishable under Sections 22 (c) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 3. The prosecution allegation is that on 30.03.2023 at 9.00 a.m., based on information received by NCB search was conducted at the DTDC Express Limited, Vengara, Malappuram and found that 99 grams of Amphetamine was received as a courier parcel and the contraband article was transported by the petitioners in conspiracy which one Abdul Jalee, and thereby committed the above offence. -4- BA No. 7624 & 8737 of 2023 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner in BA No.762/2023, argues that there is no material to connect the petitioner with the crime apart from the payment of Rs.500/-. It is also argued that all the contraband was mixed, and there is a violation of the relevant Rules. It is also argued that apart from the voluntary statement of the petitioner there is no material to connect the said accused with the crime. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner in BA No.8737/2023 also makes similar argument and submits that apart from the vague allegations of payment of Rs.500/- he has not sent the contraband or received the same for him to be implicated in the crime. He also cited the judgment of the Supreme Court in **State by (NCB) Bengaluru and others v. Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta and others** [2021 (1) KHC 853) as well as the order of this Court in BA No.2776/2023. 7. In answer, the learned counsel for the respondent filed a statement which specifies the role of the petitioners. The relevant portion of the statement is extracted hereunder:- “4. The investigation Officer then summoned two persons -5- BA No. 7624 & 8737 of 2023 Arjun E.K. (A-2) & Sherin N.S. (A-3) for enquiry. Arjun E.K. (A-2) was the consigner of the parcel originated from DTDC, Bommanahalli, bangalore & Sherin N.S. Procured the drug from the supplier identified as one person named Haadi @ Shifas (A-4). As per the voluntary statement of Arjun and Sherin N.S.(A-3), Abdul Jaleel (A-1) used to procure MDMA and other Psychotropic drugs from Bangalore though Haadi @ Shifas (A-4). Abdul Jaleel (A-1) producred the drugs from Bangalore sometimes in person, with the help of Arjun EK (A-2) and Sherin NS (A-3) and he used to get it to Matappuram by Arjun and Sherin NS (A-3) through couriers. Also, Abdul Jaleel (A-1) had arranged, procured drugs in this manner multiple times and sent through Courier from Bengaluru to Malappuram, with the involvement of Arjun and Sherin N S (A-3). All the times, the parcel was destined with the same Consignee address to a fruit vendor near his shop. In the voluntary statement of Arjun EK (A-2) be revealed that Arjun EK (A-2) Sherin NS (A-3) and Abdul Jaleel (A-1)are associates of drug business. Sherin NS(A-3) handed over a drug packet to Arjun E K (A2) for sending it to Abdul Jaleel (A-1). He received and repacked the drugs in his house as per the directions of Sherin N S (A-3) given an address to Arjun EK (A-2) along with a phone number to send drug. Arjun E.K. (A-2) went to DTDC Express courier services, Bommanahalli for sending the parcel on 24.03.2023. A-2 paid Rs.150/- as courier charge and Shering N S (A-3) sent Rs.500/- to Arjun E.K. (A-2) via UPI payment. He also revealed that he sent drug BA No. 7624 & 8737 of 2023 -6- to Kerala from Bengaluru for three times In his statement, Sheria N S. (A-3) also revealed that Arjun EK (A-2) and Abdul Jaleel (A-1) are his friends and they are drug peddlers. Sherin NS (a-2) had a long friendship with Thanveer PB (A-6) and Thanveer PB visited his house at Bengaluru many times. Thanveer PB (A-6) is a drug supplier and he had many drug supplier friends in Bengaluru. Thanveer is also a friend of Abdul Jaleel (A-1) and Thanveer PB (A-6) arranged drugs to Abdul Jaleel (A-1) Abdul Jaleel (A-1) sent amount Rs.1,10,000/- to the account of Sherin NS (A-3) and he further transferred around Rs.1,00,000/- to the account of Thanveer P.B.(A-6) for purchasing the seized drug. Sherin N.S. (A-3) kept Rs,10,000/- as profit amount from the 1,00,000/- After that, Thanveer PB (A-6) arranged drug for Abdul Jaleel (A-1) and shared the location and photo in whatsapp to Sherin NS (A3). Sherin MNS (A-3) collected the drugs from the shared location and given to Arjun EK (A-2) for sending the drug to Abdul Jaleel (A-1). Sherin NS (A-3) supplied drugs to Abdul Jaleel (A-1) for 10 times. He also revealed that his one accomplice Shifas R N (A-4) is involved in drug trafficking and give the mobile number and account number of Shifas R N ((A-4). “ 8. A reading of the above would clearly show the involvement of A2 and A3 in the crime. Initially, in the report filed on behalf of the NCB only -7- BA No. 7624 & 8737 of 2023 the payment of Rs.500/- was mentioned. However as directed by this Court in the subsequent statement filed, further details of their involvement are mentioned. Under such circumstances, since commercial quantity is involved, the rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act also applies. I am not inclined to consider the request of the petitioners for bail. I do not find anything in support of the petitioners in the judgments relied on as primafacie, there are materials to connect the petitioner with the crime. Accordingly, these applications are dismissed. ## **Sd/-** **MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.** **JUDGE** dlk/12.12.2023 -8- BA No. 7624 & 8737 of 2023 ## **APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 8737/2023** PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES Annexure 1 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE OCCURRENCE REPORT IN OR.NO.1/2023 OF NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU, ZONAL UNIT, COCHIN DATED 31.03.2023 Annexure 2 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMMON ORDER DATED 22.05.2023 IN CRL.MP. NO.1186/2023 PASSED BY THE SPECIAL COURT FOR SC/ST (POA) ACT & NDPS ACT CASES, MANJERI RESPONDENTS ANNEXURES Annexure R1 WHATS APP SCREEN SHORTS AMONG SHERIN N.S. (A3) AND ARUN E.K. (A2) -9- BA No. 7624 & 8737 of 2023 ## **APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 7624/2023** |PETITIONER'S|ANNEXURES| |---|---| |Annexure 1|TRUE COPY OF THE REMAND REPORT OF THE| ||PETITIONER IN O.R. NO. 1/2023 OF NCB, KOCHI| |Annexure 2|TRUE COPY OF THE OCCURRENCE REPORT IN O.R.| ||NO. 1/2023 OF NCB, KOCHI| |Annexure 3|TRUE COPY OF THE SEIZURE MAHAZAR IN O.R. NO.| ||1/2023 OF NCB, KOCHI| |Annexure 4|TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22.05.2023 IN| ||CRL.M.P. NO. 1156/2023PASSED BY THE HONORABLE| ||SPECIAL COURT, MANJERI|