High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2024-05-24Bail granted; petition allowed.

Muhammad Thoufeeq and Saurabh B.S. v. State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:B.A.No.4150 of 2024

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C. S. Dias
Judgment Date: 2024-05-24
Court Decision / Holding: The bail application is allowed. The petitioners are directed to be released on bail on each executing a bond of Rs.1,00,000 with two solvent sureties for the same amount, subject to conditions: periodic appearance before the Investigating Officer (every Saturday for two months or until final report, whichever is earlier); refrain from inducing or tampering with witnesses; refrain from committing any offence while on bail; surrender of passport if available; court retains power to cancel or modify bail on breach; and directions for potential recoveries by the Investigating Officer if necessary, in line with guidance from Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi). The decision was rendered by Justice C. S. Dias (Single Judge).
Final Disposition: Bail granted; petition allowed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Muhammad Thoufeeq
Saurabh B.S.

Respondents

Station House Officer, Changanassery Police Station
State of Kerala

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• M. P. Madhavankutty
• Mathew Devassi
• Ananthakrishnan A. Kartha

Counsels for Respondents

• C. S. Hrithwik

Case Synopsis & Summary

Kerala High Court, in Bail Application No. 4150 of 2024, heard on 24 May 2024, allowed bail to accused 4 and 5 in Crime No. 609/2024 (Changanassery Police Station) under the NDPS Act (sections 20(b)(ii)(B) and 29). The accused were arrested on 29 March 2024 after police intercepted a car and recovered 11.250 kg of ganja; the contraband was seized and the matter proceeded to bail consideration. The petitioners contended innocence and false implication, highlighting absence of criminal antecedents, the intermediate quantity of contraband, and the long custody since arrest; they argued that investigation is virtually complete and recovery has been effected, making further detention unnecessary. The State-respondents opposed bail, noting that the investigation is ongoing and there is a potential risk of recidivism, though conceding no antecedents and acknowledging the intermediate quantity. After careful consideration of these submissions, the Court found that the petitioners lack antecedents, have been in judicial custody since 29.03.2024, and that the contraband quantity is intermediate with near completion of the investigation and recovery already effected. Consequently, the Court allowed bail on bond of Rs.1,00,000 each with two solvent sureties, and imposed conditions including regular appearance before the IO, prohibition on tampering with witnesses, no commission of offences while on bail, surrender of passports if any, and a provision for cancellation or modification of bail for breach. The order cites Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) for guidance on police powers during bail. Justice C. S. Dias, Single Judge, delivered the order.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Sections 20(b)(ii)(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 allegations and have been falsely implicated. They have no criminal antecedents and have remained in judicial custody since 29.03.2024. The contraband, weighing 11.250 kg of ganja, is described as an intermediate quantity. They emphasize that the investigation is practically complete and recovery has been effected, which reduces the necessity for further detention. They request bail with appropriate conditions to ensure appearance before authorities and to prevent tampering with witnesses or evidence. They argue that ongoing detention beyond a reasonable period is unwarranted given the circumstances.

Contentions of Respondents

The State, represented by the Public Prosecutor, opposed bail on the grounds that the investigation is ongoing and there exists a potential risk of reoffending. While conceding the lack of antecedents and the fact that the quantity is intermediate, the prosecution stresses the necessity of maintaining the investigation's integrity and monitoring the accused, proposing standard bail conditions to safeguard witnesses and prevent tampering, with the court retaining the power to cancel or modify bail on breach.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another	2020 (1) KHC 663	Positive	Cited by the High Court to support the principle that Investigating Officers may continue investigations and effect recoveries even while accused are on bail, and to justify the bail conditions permitted in this case.

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 Muhammad Thoufeeq and Saurabh B.S. 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 ``` ``` FRIDAY, THE 24[TH] DAY OF MAY 2024 / 3RD JYAISHTA, 1946 BAIL APPL. NO. 4150 OF 2024 ``` ``` CRIME NO.609/2024 OF CHANGANASSERY POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 & 4: ``` ``` 1MUHAMMAD THOUFEEQ AGED 18 YEARS S/O. SAIFUDHEEN, SIDHIQUE MANZIL, PATTOLI MARKET, PUTHIYAVILA P.O., PERATHUMUKKU BHAGOM, KANDALLOOR VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 690531 ``` ``` 2SAURABH B.S. AGED 19 YEARS S/O. BABU, SAURAPHYA HOUSE, VATTOLI MARKET, PUTHIYAVILA P.O., PERATHUMUKKU BHAGOM, KANDALLOOR VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 690531 BY ADVS. M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY MATHEW DEVASSI ANANTHAKRISHNAN A. KARTHA ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS/STATE/COMPLAINANT:`** ``` 1STATION HOUSE OFFICER CHANGANASSERY POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 2STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 BY SRI C S HRITHWIK SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ``` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON ``` ``` 24.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` B.A.No.4150 of 2024 ## -:2:- Dated this the 24[th] day of May,2024 ## **O R D E R** The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the accused 4 and 5 in Crime No.609/2024 of Changanassery Police Station, Kottayam, registered against the accused (five in number) for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(B) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The petitioners were arrested on 29.03.2024. 2. The essence of the prosecution case is that: on 29.3.2024, at around 18.10 hours, the accused 2 and 4 were found transporting 11.250 kgs of ganja in a car bearing registration No. KL 29K 9090. The detecting officer intercepted the vehicle and seized the contraband article from the vehicle. Thus, the ## B.A.No.4150 of 2024 ## -:3:- accused have committed the above offence. 3. Heard; Sri. M.P.Madhavankutty, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri.C.S.Hrithwik., the learned Senior Public Prosecutor. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are totally innocent of the accusations leveled against them. They have been falsely implicated in the crime. In any given case, the petitioners have been in judicial custody since 29.3.2024, the petitioners have 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 petitioners’ further detention is unnecessary. Hence, the application may be allowed. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. He submitted that the investigation in the B.A.No.4150 of 2024 ## -:4:- case is in progress. He also submitted that if the petitioners are let off on bail, there is every likelihood of them committing similar offences. Nonetheless, he did not dispute the fact that the petitioners do not 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 petitioners have no criminal antecedents, that the petitioners have been in judicial custody since 29.3.2024, that the investigation in the case is practically complete, and that the recovery has been effected, I am of the view that the petitioners further detention is unnecessary. Hence, I hold that the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail. ## B.A.No.4150 of 2024 -:5:- 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. They 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.No.4150 of 2024 -:6:- (iii) The petitioners shall not commit any offence while he is on bail; (iv) The petitioners shall surrender their passport, if any, before the court below at the time of execution of the bond. If they have no passport, they 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. (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 B.A.No.4150 of 2024 -:7:- information, if any, 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** rmm/24/5/2024 ## B.A.No.4150 of 2024 -:8:-