Indrajith v. State of Kerala

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C. S. Dias
Judgment Date: 2024-07-31
Court Decision / Holding: The bail application is allowed. The petitioner Indrajith is ordered to be released on bail on a bond of Rs. 50,000 with two solvent sureties, subject to conditions (appearance before IO every Saturday in the manner specified, no inducement or tampering with witnesses, no commission of offence, surrender of passport if any, and consequences for violation under law). The Investigating Officer may continue to investigate and recover information while the petitioner remains on bail, per the Supreme Court principle cited via Sushila Aggarwal.
Final Disposition: Bail granted on stringent conditions; applicant released on bail with bonds and sureties; ongoing investigation permitted with conditions.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Indrajith

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala
Sub Inspector of Police, Punalur Police Station, Kollam

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• K. Sudhinkumar
• S. Nithin (Anchhal)

Counsels for Respondents

• Smt. Seetha S., Senior Public Prosecutor

Case Synopsis & Summary

Indrajith, the first accused in Crime No.742/2024 of the Punalur Police Station, seeks bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, before the High Court of Kerala. The prosecution contends that on 22.05.2024, a conspiracy existed among five accused to procure ganja from Odisha and that 2.490 kg of contraband was found in the residence of the second accused, with the contraband packaged for sale. The petitioner, arrested on 22.05.2024, has been in judicial custody for about 70 days. Annexure II indicates that other accused have already been enlarged on bail by the Sessions Court. The Public Prosecutor opposes bail, citing a prior, similar offence (Crime No.13/2020 of Haryana Police) and arguing risk of re-offending if released. The Sessions Court had dismissed bail on those grounds, noting the investigation was complete and that the contraband was of an intermediate quantity; the court suggested Section 37 NDPS rigour may not apply here. The High Court, after considering the totality—intermediate quantity, completed investigation, recovery of contraband, and the fact that co-accused are on bail—held that continued detention is not necessary and granted bail with stringent conditions. The judge invoked a Supreme Court principle via Sushila Aggarwal to permit continued investigation and recoveries during bail. The order ultimately allows release on bond with conditions to ensure cooperation with authorities and prevent tampering with evidence.

Provisions of Law Cited

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 483Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 20(b)(ii)(B) and 29Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Section 37

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner is totally innocent and falsely implicated. There is no material linking him to the contraband, which was recovered at the residence of the second accused. The petitioner’s prior animosity with the investigating officer and the fact that other accused have been granted bail weaken the grounds for denial. The investigation is nearly complete after 70 days in custody, and the contraband is of intermediate quantity; hence, stringent bail conditions will suffice, and detention is not necessary.

Contentions of Respondents

The petitioner is linked to Crime No.13/2020/Haryana and is thus a risk for reoffending if released. Given the nature of the offence and ongoing investigation, bail should be refused to protect the investigation and public interest.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another	2020 (1) KHC 663	Positive	Cited to justify that police can continue investigation and effect recoveries even while an accused is on bail, as endorsed by the Supreme Court.

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 ``` ``` WEDNESDAY, THE 31[ST] DAY OF JULY 2024 / 9TH SRAVANA, 1946 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 6051 OF 2024 ``` ``` CRIME NO.742/2024 OF Punalur Police Station, Kollam ``` ``` -------------- ``` ## **`PETITIONER/ACCUSED :-`** ``` INDRAJITH, AGED 28 YEARS S/O SURESH BABU, NR. DEEPTHI VILASOM, GURU MANDIRAM, MALIAKKAL, PLACHERRY P.O., VALAKKODU, KOLLAM, PIN - 691 331 ``` ``` BY ADVS. K.SUDHINKUMAR S.NITHIN (ANCHAL) ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/STATE & COMPLAINANT :-`** - **`1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682 031`** - **`2 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE PUNALUR POLICE STATION, KOLLAM, PIN - 691 305 BY SMT.SEETHA S., SR.PP`** ## **`THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON`** ``` 31.07.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 6051 OF 2024 ``` ``` -: 2 :- ``` ## **O R D E R** ## **Dated this the 31st day of July, 2024** The application is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, by the first accused in Crime No.742/2024 of the Punalur Police Station, Kollam, which is registered against the five accused persons, for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(B) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 22.05.2024. 2. The essence of the prosecution case is that; on 22.05.2024, at around 09:45 hrs., the accused had hatched a conspiracy and they procured ganja from the State of Odisha. The accused were found in conscious possession of 2.490 kgs. of ganja which was stored at the residence of the second accused. The contraband was stored in small ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 6051 OF 2024 ``` ``` -: 3 :- ``` packets for the purpose of sale. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences. 3. Heard; Sri.K.Sudhin Kumar, 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. There is no material to substantiate the petitioner's involvement in the case. In fact the contraband was seized from the residence of the second accused. The petitioner has been implicated in the crime due to the previous animosity of the Investigating Officer. Actually, the other accused have already been enlarged on bail by the Court of Session as per Annexure II order. The petitioner has been denied bail only on the ground that he has one antecedence. The petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last 70 days, the investigation in the case is ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 6051 OF 2024 ``` ``` -: 4 :- ``` practically complete and recovery has been effected. Therefore, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. She submitted that the petitioner is involved in Crime No.13/2020 of the Haryana Police Station for committing an offence of a similar nature. If the petitioner is enlarged on bail, there is every likelihood of him committing a similar offence. Hence, the application may be dismissed. 6. The prosecution allegation against the petitioner is that; he along with the other accused were found in conscious possession of 2.490 kgs. of ganja. Admittedly, the petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 22.05.2024. The sole reason for the learned Sessions Judge to dismiss the petitioner's application for bail is that he is involved in Crime No.13/2020 of the Haryana Police Station. Indisputably, the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last 70 days, the ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 6051 OF 2024 ``` ``` -: 5 :- ``` investigation in the case is complete, recovery has been effected and the contraband involved in the case is of an intermediate quantity. Therefore, the rigour under Section 37 of the Act may not be applicable to the facts of the case, even though Section 29 of the Act has been incorporated. 7. On an overall consideration of the facts, the rival submissions made across the Bar, and the materials placed on record, particularly on considering the fact that the contraband involved in the case is of an intermediate quantity, the earlier crime alleged against the petitioner is of the year 2020, the investigation in the present case is complete and recovery has been effected, I am of the firm view that the petitioner's further detention is not necessary. Hence, I am inclined to allow the application, but subject to stringent conditions. In the result, the application is allowed, by directing the petitioner to be released on bail on him executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 6051 OF 2024 ``` ``` -: 6 :- ``` 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 on - Investigating Officer every Saturday between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m till the final report is laid. 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 them 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 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 ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 6051 OF 2024 ``` ``` -: 7 :- ``` 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 Delhi) and another** [2020 (1) KHC 663]. **Sd/-** ## **C.S. DIAS, JUDGE** Jvt/31.7.2024 ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 6051 OF 2024 ``` ``` -: 8 :- ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL.6051/2024`** ## **`PETITIONER ANNEXURES :-`** ``` Annexure ITRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 742/2024 DATED 22.05.2024 REGISTERED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT Annexure IITRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE PRINCIPLE SESSIONS COURT, KOLLAM IN CRL. M.C. NO. 1168/2024 DATED 03.07.2024 ```