High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeBail granted; applicant released on bail with s...

FARZIN P P v. STATE OF KERALA

Case / Petition Number:BAIL APPL. NO. 6063 OF 2024

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • C. S. Dias
Judgment Date
2024-08-01
Court Decision / Holding
The application is allowed. The petitioner Farzin P P is granted bail on a bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with two solvent sureties for equal amount, to the satisfaction of the trial court, subject to conditions: (i) appearance before the Investigating Officer on Saturdays for two months or until final report is filed; (ii) no inducement or intimidation to witnesses or tampering with evidence; (iii) not to commit any offence while on bail; (iv) surrender of passport or file an affidavit in lieu; (v) jurisdictional court may cancel bail on violation; (vi) applications for modification of conditions may be filed; (vii) IO may investigate and recover as allowed by law even while bail subsists, following the principle laid down in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another. Sd/ C.S. Dias, J.”,
Final Disposition
Bail granted; applicant released on bail with specified conditions.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • FARZIN P P

Respondents

  • State of Kerala

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • RAMEES P.K.
  • • ADITHYA VARMA S.
  • • ERFANA PARAMBADAN

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Smt. Seetha S. - Senior Public Prosecutor

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a bail application under Section 439 CrPC filed by Farzin P P, the third accused in Crime No.697/2024 of Kannur Town Police Station, Kannur, pending before the Special Court (NDPS Act Cases), Vadakara. The accused were arrested on 20.06.2024 for allegedly possessing 3.72 grams of ganja and 5.60 grams of MDMA in a hotel room, with the contraband recovered on the spot. The offences alleged are under NDPS Act sections 20(b)(ii)(A) and 22(b) read with Section 29. The petitioner contends innocence, false implication, and asserts that he has no criminal antecedents and has already remained in judicial custody since 20.06.2024. He argues that the contraband constitutes an intermediate quantity and that the investigation is practically complete, with the recovery already effected; therefore, further detention is unnecessary. The State opposes bail, noting ongoing investigation and asserting concerns about reoffending, though conceding absence of antecedents and the intermediate quantity. After careful consideration of these factors—intermediate quantity, lack of antecedents, lengthy custody, and near-completion of the investigation—the High Court grants bail. The court directs bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with two solvent sureties, and imposes conditions including weekly appearances before the IO, prohibition on inducement or tampering with evidence, non-commission of any offence, passport surrender, and potential cancellation for violation. The order cites a Supreme Court principle from Sushila Aggarwal regarding police powers to investigate and recover even during bail.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Sections 20(b)(ii)(A) and 22(b) read with Section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The applicant contends that he is totally innocent and has been falsely implicated; there are no criminal antecedents; he has remained in judicial custody since 20.06.2024 and the contraband is of intermediate quantity. He asserts that the investigation is practically complete and that the recovery has been effected, making further detention unnecessary. He requests bail to allow him to assist in the ongoing investigation and to avoid the stigma and disruption of prolonged detention. He also emphasizes lack of antecedents and cooperation with law enforcement as factors favoring bail.

Contentions of Respondents

The State argues that the investigation is ongoing and that there is a risk of the petitioner committing similar offences if released on bail. However, the State concedes the petitioner has no criminal antecedents and that the contraband is of an intermediate quantity. It contends that bail should not be granted unless the court is satisfied that continuing custody is unnecessary and that conditions can mitigate flight risk or interference with evidence.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another2020 (1) KHC 663PositiveCited as authority for the power of the Investigating Officer to investigate and effect recoveries even while a bail is in force, supporting the imposition of post-bail conditions.

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 FARZIN P P 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 1[ST] DAY OF AUGUST 2024 / 10TH SRAVANA, 1946 ``` ## **`BAIL APPL. NO. 6063 OF 2024`** ``` CRIME NO.697/2024 OF KANNUR TOWN, KANNUR ``` ``` AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 06.07.2024 IN CRL.M.P. NO.572 OF 2024 OF SPECIAL COURT (NDPS ACT CASES), VADAKARA ``` ## **`PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.3:`** ``` FARZIN P P AGED 21 YEARS S/O JALALUDHEEN K P, JANNAH HOUSE, KADAPPURAM ROAD, AZHIKODE, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670009 ``` ``` BY ADVS. RAMEES P.K. ADITHYA VARMA S. ERFANA PARAMBADAN ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:`** ``` STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 ``` ``` BY ADV. SMT. SEETHA S. - SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ``` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON ``` ``` 01.08.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` 2 ``` ## **`B.A. NO.6063 OF 2024`** ## **C.S.DIAS, J.** **-------------------------------------------------------Bail Application No. 6063 of 2024 ------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 1[st] day of August, 2024** ## **O R D E R** The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the 3[rd] accused in Crime No.697/2024 of the Kannur Town Police Station, Kannur, which is registered against the accused for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(A) and 22(b) read with Section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 20.06.2024. 2. The essence of the prosecution case is that: on 20.06.2024, at around 16.50 hours, the accused Nos.1 to 3 were in found in conscious possession of 3.72 grams of ganja and 5.60 grams of MDMA in a hotel ``` 3 ``` ## **`B.A. NO.6063 OF 2024`** room at Kannur. The accused were arrested on the spot with the contraband articles. Thus, the accused have committed the above offence. 3. Heard; Sri. Ramees P. K., the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. Seetha S., the learned Senior Public Prosecutor. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusations leveled against him. He has been falsely implicated in the crime. In any given case, the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 20.06.2024, the petitioner has no criminal antecedents, the contraband that was allegedly seized from the accused is of an intermediate quantity, the investigation in the case is practically complete, and the recovery has been effected. Therefore, the petitioner’s further detention is unnecessary. Hence, the application may be allowed. ``` 4 ``` ## **`B.A. NO.6063 OF 2024`** 5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. She submitted that the investigation in the case is in progress. She also submitted that if the petitioner is let off on bail, there is every likelihood of him committing similar offences. Nonetheless, she did not dispute the fact that the petitioner doesn't have any criminal antecedents and the contraband involved in the case is of an intermediate quantity. 6. After bestowing my anxious consideration to the facts, the rival submissions made across the Bar, and the materials placed on record, especially on considering the fact that the contraband allegedly seized from the accused is of an intermediate quantity, that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents, that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 20.06.2024, that the investigation in the case is practically complete, and that the recovery has been ``` 5 ``` ## **`B.A. NO.6063 OF 2024`** effected, 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 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 ``` 6 ``` ## **`B.A. NO.6063 OF 2024`** 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; - iv. The petitioner shall surrender his passport, if any, before the Trial Court at the time of execution of the bond. If he has no passport, he shall file an affidavit to the effect before the Trial Court 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; ``` 7 ``` ## **`B.A. NO.6063 OF 2024`** vi. Applications for deletion/modification of the bail conditions shall be filed and entertained before the Trial Court; 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 Delhi) and another** [2020 (1) KHC 663]. **Sd/C.S. DIAS JUDGE** BR ``` 8 ``` ## **`B.A. NO.6063 OF 2024`** ## **`APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 6063/2024`** ``` PETITIONER’S ANNEXURES Annexure 1 ``` ``` A TRUE COPY OF FIRST INFORMATION REPORT IN CRIME NO. 697/2024 OF KANNUR TOWN POLICE STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT ``` ``` Annexure 2A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRL.M P. NO. 572/2024 BEFORE THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE (NDPS ACT CASES) VATAKARA DATED 06/07/2024 ``` ``` RESPONDENT’S ANNEXURES: NIL ```