Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeBail granted to all four petitioners on specifi...

Common Bail Applications - Sidharth Jayaraj; Fariz Faizal; Shihas; Rahul v State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:2523/2024; 2530/2024; 2531/2024; 2533/2024

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • C. S. Dias
Judgment Date
2024-04-04
Court Decision / Holding
The applications are allowed; bail granted to each petitioner on a bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with two solvent sureties of like amount, to the satisfaction of the trial court. Conditions include: (i) appearance before the Investigating Officer every Saturday for two months or until final report; (ii) non-inducement or tampering with witnesses or evidence; (iii) no commission of any offence while on bail; (iv) surrender of passports or affidavits if none; (v) power to cancel/bail conditions for violation; (vi) modifications/deletions of bail conditions upon application; (vii) IO may continue investigations and effect recoveries while on bail in line with Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another. The order consolidates four cases arising from the same crime and disposes of them through a common order.
Final Disposition
Bail granted to all four petitioners on specified conditions; the petitions disposed of accordingly.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Rahul
  • Shihas
  • Fariz Faizal
  • Sidharth Jayaraj

Respondents

  • State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala Ernakulam
  • Station House Officer, Chavara Thekkumbhagom Police Station, Kollam District

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • K. Siju
  • • Anjana Kannath
  • • B. N. Haskar
  • • B. K. Gopalakrishnan

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Seetha S
  • • C. S. Hrithwik
  • • Shynimol V. O.

Case Synopsis & Summary

Four bail petitions under Section 439 CrPC were heard together by Justice C.S. Dias arising from Crime No. 215/2024 of Chavara South Police Station, Kollam, involving MDMA and cannabis seized around midnight on 08.03.2024. The petitioners, Rahul (BA 2523), Shihas (BA 2530), Fariz Faizal (BA 2531) and Sidharth Jayaraj (BA 2533), were arrested and charged under Sections 22(b) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The prosecution contends that investigation is ongoing and that the petitioners are likely to commit similar offences if released. The petitioners claim innocence, lack of criminal antecedents, and argue that the contraband recovered is of intermediate quantity; they assert the investigation is near completion and that release on bail would not jeopardize the case. The court consolidated all four cases, heard them jointly, and observed that the contraband was of intermediate quantity, petitioners have been in custody since 08.03.2024, and the investigation is practically complete with recoveries effected. The court granted bail subject to conditions including bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with two solvent sureties, appearance before the IO on Saturdays for two months, non-tampering with witnesses, surrender of passports, and potential cancellation or modification on breach, citing Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another for allowing continued investigation while on bail. The order reflects a careful balance between liberty and public interest.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Sections 22(b) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners submit that they are innocent of the charges and have been falsely implicated. They contend no criminal antecedents exist and that the contraband involved is of intermediate quantity. They emphasize that the investigation is practically complete, the recovery has been effected, and continued detention is unnecessary. They urge that release on bail will not undermine the investigation or public safety, and request bail on reasonable terms. They highlight the lack of any compelling reason to deny bail given the absence of antecedents and the time already spent in custody.

Contentions of Respondents

The State, represented by the Public Prosecutor, opposes bail, arguing that the investigation is ongoing and that there is a real possibility of the petitioners reoffending or influencing witnesses. They emphasize the NDPS offences, the gravity of the crime, and the need to ensure effective investigation and accountability. They contend bail at this stage could hamper the proceedings and undermine the prosecution’s case, warranting dismissal of the applications unless strong safeguards are imposed.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another2020 (1) KHC 663PositiveCited to justify that the Investigating Officer may continue investigation and effect recoveries even while the accused are on bail, per Supreme Court guidance.

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 Common Bail Applications - Sidharth Jayaraj; Fariz Faizal; Shihas; Rahul 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 4[TH] DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 15TH CHAITHRA, 1946 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 2533 OF 2024 ``` ``` CRIME NO.215/2024 OF CHAVARA SOUTH POLICE STATION, KOLLAM ``` ``` AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 21.03.2024 IN CRMC NO.454 OF 2024 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT,KOLLAM ``` ## `PETITIONER:` ``` SIDHARTH JAYARAJ AGED 33 YEARS S/O. JAYARAJ. P, NEELIMA, KAIRALI NAGAR 24, 2ND MILE STONE, KILIKOLLOOR.P.O, KILIKOLLOOR, KOLLAM, PIN – 691004 ``` ``` BY ADVS.B.N.HASKAR B.K.GOPALAKRISHNAN ``` ``` RESPONDENT: ``` ``` STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM, PIN – 682031 ``` ## `OTHER PRESENT:` ``` SR PP SMT SEETHA S ``` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.04.2024 ALONG WITH 2530/2024 & CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` B.A.Nos.2523, 2530, 2531 & 2533/2024 -:2:- ## `IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM` ## `PRESENT` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS ``` ``` THURSDAY, THE 4[TH] DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 15TH CHAITHRA, 1946 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 2531 OF 2024 ``` ``` CRIME NO.215/2024 OF CHAVARA SOUTH POLICE STATION, KOLLAM ``` ``` AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 21.03.2024 IN CRMC NO.452 OF 2024 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT,KOLLAM ``` ## `PETITIONER:` ``` FARIZ FAIZAL AGED 37 YEARS S/O. FASALUDHEEN, VELIYIL VEEDU, MUSALIAR NAGAR-26, KILIKOLLOOR, KOLLAM., PIN – 691004 ``` ``` BY ADVS.B.N.HASKAR B.K.GOPALAKRISHNAN ``` ``` RESPONDENT: ``` ``` STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM, PIN – 682031 ``` ## `OTHER PRESENT:` ``` PP SMT SHYNIMOL V O ``` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.04.2024 ALONG WITH 2530/2024 & CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` B.A.Nos.2523, 2530, 2531 & 2533/2024 -:3:- ``` IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM ``` ## `PRESENT` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS ``` ``` THURSDAY, THE 4[TH] DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 15TH CHAITHRA, 1946 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 2530 OF 2024 ``` ``` CRIME NO.215/2024 OF CHAVARA SOUTH POLICE STATION, KOLLAM ``` ``` AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 21.03.2024 IN CRMC NO.467 OF 2024 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT,KOLLAM ``` ``` PETITIONER: ``` ``` SHIHAS AGED 37 YEARS S/O. SAFARULLAH KHAN, VELIYIL VEEDU, MUSALIAR NAGAR-26, KILIKOLLOOR, KOLLAM, PIN – 691004 ``` ``` BY ADVS.B.N.HASKAR B.K.GOPALAKRISHNAN ``` ``` RESPONDENT: ``` ``` STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM, PIN – 682031 ``` ``` OTHER PRESENT: ``` ``` SR PP SRI C S HRITHWIK ``` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.04.2024 ALONG WITH 2531/2024 & CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` B.A.Nos.2523, 2530, 2531 & 2533/2024 -:4:- ## `IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM` ## `PRESENT` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS ``` ``` THURSDAY, THE 4[TH] DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 15TH CHAITHRA, 1946 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 2523 OF 2024 ``` ``` CRIME NO.215/2024 OF THEKKUMBHAGOM POLICE STATION, KOLLAM ``` ``` AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 21.03.2024 IN CRMC NO.477 OF 2024 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT,KOLLAM ``` ## `PETITIONER:` ``` RAHUL AGED 33 YEARS S/O.MOHANAN NAIR, LAKSHMI BHAVANAM, TAZHAKARA, MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA -, PIN – 690102 ``` ``` BY ADVS.K.SIJU ``` ``` ANJANA KANNATH ``` ## `RESPONDENTS:` ``` 1STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN – 682031 ``` ``` 2STATION HOUSE OFFICER CHAVARA THEKKUMBHAGOM POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT -, PIN – 691590 ``` ## `OTHER PRESENT:` ## `SR PP SMT SEETHA S` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.04.2024 ALONG WITH 2530/2024 & CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` B.A.Nos.2523, 2530, 2531 & 2533/2024 -:5:- _Dated this the 4[th] day of April,2024_ ## **C O M M O N O R D E R** The applications are filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the accused Nos.1, 2, 4 & 6 in Crime No.215/2024 of Chavara Police Station, Kollam, registered against them for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 22(b) & 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The petitioners were arrested on 08.03.2024. B.A.No.2531, 2533, 2530 & 2523/2024 are filed by the accused Nos.1, 2, 4 & 6, respectively. Since all the cases arise out of the same crime, they are consolidated, jointly heard, and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The crux of the prosecution case, is that: on 08.03.2024, at around 00.30 hours, the accused were found in possession of 0.758 grams of MDMA and 2.72 grams of ganja, for the purpose of sale. The accused B.A.Nos.2523, 2530, 2531 & 2533/2024 -:6:- were arrested then and there on the spot with the contraband article. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences. 3. Heard; Sri. K. Siju, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in B.A.No.2523/2024; Sri. B.N. Haskar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in the other bail applications; Sri. C. S. Hrithwik and Smt. Shynimol V.O., the learned Public Prosecutors appearing for the respondents. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are totally innocent of the accusations leveled against them. They have been falsely implicated in the crime. The petitioners have no criminal antecedents. The contraband that was allegedly seized from the accused are of an intermediate quantity. The investigation in the case is practically complete, and the recovery has been effected. Therefore, the petitioners’ further B.A.Nos.2523, 2530, 2531 & 2533/2024 -:7:- detention is unnecessary. Hence, the applications may be allowed. 5. The learned Public Prosecutors opposed the applications. They submitted that the investigation in the case is in progress. If the petitioners are let off on bail, there is every likelihood of them committing similar offences. Hence, the applications may be dismissed. 6. After bestowing my anxious consideration to the facts, the rival submission made across the Bar, and the materials placed on record, especially considering the fact that the contraband allegedly seized from the accused is of an intermediate quantity, that the petitioners have no criminal antecedents, that the petitioners have been in judicial custody since 08.03.2024, that the investigation in the case is practically complete, and the recovery has been effected, I am of the view that the petitioners’ further B.A.Nos.2523, 2530, 2531 & 2533/2024 -:8:- detention is unnecessary. Hence, I hold that the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail. In the result, the application is allowed, by directing the petitioners to be released on bail on them executing a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) each 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 petitioners 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 petitioners 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 them from disclosing such facts to the court or to any Police Officer or tamper with the evidence in any manner, whatsoever; B.A.Nos.2523, 2530, 2531 & 2533/2024 -:9:- - (iii) The petitioners shall not commit any offence while they are on bail; - (iv) The petitioners shall surrender their passports, if any, before the court below at the time of execution of the bond. If they have no passports, they shall file affidavits 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, B.A.Nos.2523, 2530, 2531 & 2533/2024 -:10:- given by the petitioners even while the petitioners are on bail as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in **Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another** [2020 (1) KHC 663]. Sd/- ## **C.S.DIAS,JUDGE** DST/04.04.24 //True copy// P.A. To Judge