Lineesh T B v. State of Kerala and The Station House Officer, Cheranalloor Police Station

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C.S. Dias
Judgment Date: 2024-05-31
Court Decision / Holding: The petition is allowed; the petitioner is released on bail on execution of a bond for Rs.1,00,000 with two solvent sureties of like amount, subject to conditions: periodic appearance before Investigating Officer on Saturdays for two months or until final report; no inducement or tampering; no commission of offences; surrender of passport; potential cancellation or modification of bail on violation; and noting that recoveries/investigations may continue on bail as per Supreme Court guidance (Sushila Aggarwal).
Final Disposition: Petition allowed; bail granted.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Lineesh T B

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala
The Station House Officer, Cheranalloor Police Station, Cheranalloor, Kochi, Ernakulam

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Luke J. Chirayil

Counsels for Respondents

• Smt.Seetha S.

Case Synopsis & Summary

Lineesh T B, the sole accused in Crime No.216/2024 of Cheranalloor Police Station, Ernakulam, petitions under Section 439 CrPC for bail while the trial on charges under Sections 22(c) and 29 NDPS Act for allegedly conscious possession of 17.88 grams of MDMA on 02.03.2024. The prosecution case asserts possession of a commercial quantity amounting to MDMA, leading to arrest. The petitioner contends innocence, misidentification or false implication, and that there is no material linking him to possession of drugs. He notes that the investigation is nearly complete, he has remained in custody for about 90 days, and recovery has been effected. He asserts that the chemical analysis report, submitted by the Chemical Examiners Laboratory, Kakkanad, dated 19.04.2024, shows the contraband to be methamphetamine rather than MDMA; thus the quantity is intermediate, not commercial. The Public Prosecutor accepts the lab report for purposes of charge sheet but does not dispute petitioner’s lack of antecedents. On hearing both sides, the court observes that the contraband has in fact been found to be methamphetamine of intermediate quantity, and the petitioner has no prior offenses. Given the nearly complete investigation and the need to avoid unnecessary detention, the court grants bail on conditions, including bond of Rs 1 lakh with two sureties, regular appearance, restrictions on tampering and inducement, passport surrender, and possible cancellation/modification of bail, citing Sushila Aggarwal’s doctrine on bail conditions.

Provisions of Law Cited

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

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends innocence, false implication, and lack of material connecting him to possession of drugs. He points to nearly 90 days of custodial detention, completion of investigation, and a chemical report suggesting the contraband is methamphetamine, i.e., an intermediate quantity, not MDMA. He emphasizes lack of criminal antecedents and seeks bail.

Contentions of Respondents

Prosecution argues that investigation is ongoing and release on bail risks repetition of offences. It relies on the initial claim of MDMA possession and submits the chemical report to confirm the contraband type, while acknowledging no contradiction about the petitioner’s antecedents.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another	2020 (1) KHC 663	Positive	Cited to support that bail conditions may permit ongoing investigations/recoveries and that a court may impose stringent conditions to safeguard the process; used to justify post-bail actions within the powers of the investigating authorities.

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** **FRIDAY, THE 31[ST] DAY OF MAY 2024 / 10TH JYAISHTA, 1946** **BAIL APPL. NO. 3592 OF 2024** **CRIME NO.216/2024 OF Cheranelloor Police Station, Ernakulam** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CRMC NO.815 OF 2024 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM PETITIONER/S:** **LINEESH T B, AGED 35 YEARS SON OF BALAN ,THUNDIPARAMBIL HOUSE,MATHIRAPPILLY ROAD, EDAYAKKUNAM, CHERANELLOOR, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682028** **BY ADV LUKE J CHIRAYIL** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, CHERANALLOOR POLICE STATION,CHERANALLOOR, KOCHI,ERNAKULAM, PIN – 682034** **SR.PP.SMT.SEETHA S.** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** BAIL APPL. NO. 3592 OF 2024 2 ## **ORDER** The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the sole accused in Crime No.216/2024 of the Cheranalloor Police Station, Ernakulam, registered against the accused for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 22(c) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short, ‘the Act’). The petitioner was arrested on 02.03.2024. 2. The crux of the prosecution case is that: on 02.03.2024, at around 23.20 hours, the accused was found in conscious possession of 17.88 grams of MDMA. The accused was arrested on the spot with the contraband article. Thus, the accused has committed the above offences. 3. Heard; Sri.Luke J. Chirayil, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt.Seetha S., the learned Public Prosecutor. BAIL APPL. NO. 3592 OF 2024 3 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 show that the contraband was seized from the conscious possession of the petitioner. The petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last three months, the investigation in the case is complete and recovery has been effected. Moreover, the petitioner has reliably learnt that as per the chemical analysis report, the contraband involved in the case is not 'MDMA' as alleged by the prosecution, but only 'methamphetamine'. Therefore, the contraband is of an intermediate quantity. The petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents. Hence, the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail. Therefore, the application may be allowed. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the application. She submitted that the investigation in the case is in progress. She also stated BAIL APPL. NO. 3592 OF 2024 4 that, if the petitioner is released on bail, there is every likelihood of him committing similar offences. Hence, the application may be dismissed. However, the learned Public Prosecutor made available the chemical analysis report submitted by the Chemical Examiners Laboratory Department, Kakkanad dated 19.04.2024 which shows that the contraband involved in the case is 'methamphetamine' and not 'MDMA'. She also did not dispute the fact that the petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents. 6. The prosecution was launched against the petitioner on the allegation that he was found in conscious possession of 17.88 grams of MDMA, which is of a commercial quantity. Indisputably, as per the chemical analysis report referred to above, the contraband has turned out to be 'methamphetamine' and not 'MDMA'. Therefore, the contraband is of an intermediate quantity. Moreover, the petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents. BAIL APPL. NO. 3592 OF 2024 5 7. On an anxious consideration of the facts, the rival submissions made across the Bar, the materials placed on record, especially on considering the fact that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last nearly 90 days, the investigation in the case is practically complete, recovery has been effected and further that the contraband involved in the case is of an intermediate quantity and the petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents, 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 Officer on Investigating every Saturday BAIL APPL. NO. 3592 OF 2024 6 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 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 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; - (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. BAIL APPL. NO. 3592 OF 2024 7 - (vi) Application 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** rkc/31.05.24 BAIL APPL. NO. 3592 OF 2024 8 ## **APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 3592/2024** ## **PETITIONER ANNEXURES** **Annexure A1** **TRUE COPY OF THE FIR DATED 03.03.2024 NUMBERED AS 0216 OF 2024 ON THE FILES OF CHERANALLOOR POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM CITY DISTRICT** ## **Annexure A2** **TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25.03.2024 IN CRL.M C NO.815/2024 IN CRIME NO. 216/2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT, AT ERNAKULAM**