High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2024-03-21BAIL GRANTED

Ishak Karjee v. The Circle Inspector, Excise Range Office, Aluva, Ernakulam District and State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:BA No.2089 of 2024

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C. S. Dias
Judgment Date: 2024-03-21
Court Decision / Holding: The application is allowed. The petitioner Ishak Karjee is to be released on bail on execution of a bond for Rs. 1,00,000 with two solvent sureties for the like sum, 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. till the conclusion of proceedings; (ii) the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly induce, threaten or procure witnesses or tamper with evidence; (iii) the petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail; (iv) the petitioner shall furnish his present and permanent addresses and mobile number to the court and the IO; (v) the petitioner shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of the Court of Session, Ernakulam, without permission; (vi) the petitioner shall surrender any passport to the court; (vii) breach of any condition may lead to cancellation of bail; (viii) applications for modification of bail conditions shall be filed before the court; (ix) the Investigating Officer may continue investigations and effect recoveries as necessary, in line with the principle laid down in Sushila Aggarwal.
Final Disposition: BAIL GRANTED

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Ishak Karjee

Respondents

The Circle Inspector, Excise Range Office, Aluva, Ernakulam District
State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Harish R. Menon
• A.G. Prasanth
• K. T. Shyamkumar
• K. N. Abha
• Aleena Sebastian
• Mary Hedwig Baby

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri C.S Hrithwik

Case Synopsis & Summary

The bail petition arises under Section 439 CrPC in relation to Crime No.56/2023 of the Aluva Excise Range Office, Ernakulam, for an alleged offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) NDPS Act, 1985. The petitioner, Ishak Karjee, was arrested on 10 August 2023 after being found in possession of 3 kg of ganja at Aluva railway station; the contraband amount is categorized as an intermediate quantity. The prosecution maintains the accused was in conscious possession and the case progresses with investigation nearly complete; a final report has been laid. The petitioner contends innocence and false implication, highlighting absence of criminal antecedents, the investigation’s near completion, and the lack of roots in Kerala; he seeks bail. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on Hussainara Khatoon guidelines that non-residents should not be denied bail solely for lack of local roots. The Respondents oppose bail, citing risk of flight and lack of local ties. After evaluating the materials, the High Court holds that continued detention is unnecessary given the facts: intermediate quantity, no antecedents, and near-completion of investigation. The court grants bail on stringent conditions, including a bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with two solvent sureties, and detailed conditions to ensure attendance, non-interference with the investigation, territorial limits, and passport surrender, with a note that recoveries may be effected in line with Sushila Aggarwal principles.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Sec. 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar (1980) 1 SCC 98 – bail guidelines for non-resident accused; root location not sole determinant for denial of bail
Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, 2020 (1) KHC 663 – supports bail conditions with continued investigation/recoveries as permissible on bail

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner submits he is innocent and has been falsely implicated. He has been in judicial custody since 10.08.2023. Investigation is practically complete; contraband recovered; he has no criminal antecedents. The contraband quantity is intermediate—not the highest category. He has no roots in Kerala, but guidelines from Hussainara Khatoon require bail consideration and denial cannot be merely on lack of roots. He seeks bail with stringent conditions to ensure attendance and non-interference, arguing that detention is unnecessary and that justice demands release subject to proper monitoring.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondent State contends the petitioner has no substantial ties to Kerala and there is a real risk of flight; however, the investigation is near completion and final report has been laid. The contraband quantity being intermediate warrants cautious handling; denial of bail is a viable option to protect the investigation and public interest.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar	1980 (1) SCC 98	Positive	Provides bail guidelines that lack of roots should not automatically preclude bail.
Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another	2020 (1) KHC 663	Positive	Supports continuation of investigation/recovery actions under bail according to 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 Ishak Karjee v. The Circle Inspector, Excise Range Office, Aluva, Ernakulam District and 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.

1 BA No.2089 of 2024 ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS ``` ``` THURSDAY, THE 21[ST] DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 1ST CHAITHRA, 1946 BAIL APPL. NO. 2089 OF 2024 ``` ``` CRIME NO.56/2023 OF Aluva Excise Range Office, Ernakulam ``` ## **`PETITIONER/S:`** ``` ISHAK KARJEE ``` ``` AGED 49 YEARS S/O , KARNIYAL KARJEE SAMBALPUR P O, NJHALARASING, GAJAPATI, ODISHA-, PIN - 761016 ``` ``` BY ADVS. HARISH R. MENON A.G.PRASANTH K.T.SHYAMKUMAR K.N.ABHA ALEENA SEBASTIAN MARY HEDWIG BABY ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** ``` 1THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR EXCISE RANGE OFFICE, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683101 2STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 ``` ``` Sr PP SRI C.S Hrithwik ``` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` 2 BA No.2089 of 2024 ## **C.S.DIAS,J** ## **======================** ## **BA No.2089 of 2024** ## **-----------------------------------** ## **Dated this the 21[st] 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.56/2023 of the Aluva Excise Range Office, Ernakulam, registered against him, for allegedly committing the offence punishable under Sec.20 (b) (ii) (B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The petitioner was arrested on 10.8.2023. 2. The gist of the prosecution case is that: on 10.8.2023 at around 17.00 hours, the accused was found in possession of 3 kg of ganja at the Aluva railway station. The accused was 3 BA No.2089 of 2024 arrested with the contraband then and there at the spot. Thus, the accused has committed the above offence. 3. Heard; Sri.Harish R.Menon, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.C.S Hrithwik, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusations levelled against him. He has been falsely implicated in the crime. Notwithstanding the other contentions raised in the application, the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 10.8.2023, the investigation in the case is practically complete, recovery has been effected, the petitioner does not have criminal antecedents and the contraband seized from the petitioner is of an intermediate quantity. Hence, the application may be allowed. 4 BA No.2089 of 2024 5. The learned Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the application. He submitted that the petitioner does not have roots in the State of Kerala. If the petitioner is enlarged on bail, there is every likelihood of him fleeing from justice. Hence, the application may be dismissed. 6. The prosecution allegation against the petitioner is that he was found in conscious possession of 3 Kg of ganja. Indisputably, the contraband is of an intermediate quantity. The petitioner also does not have criminal antecedents. The investigation in the case is practically complete and final report has been laid. 7. In **Hussainara Khatoon vs. Home Secretary, State of Bihar** [ 1980 (1) SCC 98 ], the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down the guidelines for granting bail to a person who does not have roots in the place of occurrence. However, it is held 5 BA No.2089 of 2024 that merely because a person does not have roots, he cannot be denied bail. 8. On an anxious consideration of the facts, the materials placed on record, the rival submissions made across the Bar, especially taking into account the fact that the contraband that was allegedly seized from the petitioner is of an intermediate quantity, that the petitioner does not have criminal antecedents, that the investigation in the case is practically complete and final report has been laid, I am of the definite view that the petitioner’s further detention is unnecessary. Hence, I am inclined to allow the bail 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.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with two solvent 6 BA No.2089 of 2024 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 till the conclusion of the proceedings. (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; 7 BA No.2089 of 2024 (iv) The petitioner shall furnish his present address as well as his permanent address and mobile phone number to the court below and the Investigating Officer; (v) The petitioner shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of the Court of Session, Ernakulam, without the permission of the jurisdictional Court. (vi) 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; (vii) 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. 8 BA No.2089 of 2024 (viii) Applications for deletion/modification of the bail conditions shall be filed and entertained before the court below. (ix) 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/- sks/21.3.2024 **C.S.DIAS, JUDGE**