High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeBail Granted/Granted bail to the petitioner.

Muhammed Kutty v. State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:BAIL APPL. NO. 1725 OF 2024

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • C. S. Dias
Judgment Date
2024-04-03
Court Decision / Holding
The bail application is allowed. The petitioner Muhammed Kutty is to be released on bail on executing a bond for Rs. 1,00,000 with two solvent sureties of like amount. Conditions include appearance before IO on alternate Saturdays for three months or until final report; prohibition on inducing or tampering with witnesses; prohibition on committing any offence while on bail; surrender of passport (or an affidavit if none); the court may cancel or modify bail on breach; and IO may continue investigation and effect recoveries as permitted by law, referencing Sushila Aggarwal doctrine.
Final Disposition
Bail Granted/Granted bail to the petitioner.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Muhammed Kutty

Respondents

  • State of Kerala

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Adv R. Ranjith (Manjeri)

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Smt Neema T V

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a bail application under Section 439 CrPC filed by Muhammed Kutty, the third accused in Crime No. 86/2024 of Karipur Police Station, Malappuram, alleging offences under Sections 20(b)(ii)(B) and 29 of the NDPS Act. The prosecution contends that on 3 February 2024, around 21:00 hours, two kilograms of ganja were recovered at the scene, with three accused apprehended. The petitioner asserts innocence, claiming false implication and absence from the location; he has been in judicial custody since 03.02.2024, the investigation is practically complete, and the contraband seized is of intermediate quantity. The State opposes bail, noting ongoing investigation and the petitioner’s alleged involvement in Crime No. 417/2023 at the same station, which raises concerns about potential re-offending if released. The High Court, after evaluating the materials, highlights the intermediate quantity, the 60 days of custody, and the近 completion of the investigation with recovery already effected. It concludes that further detention is unnecessary and grants bail on condition of a Rs.1,00,000 bond with two solvent sureties. The order imposes appearance obligations on alternate Saturdays for three months or until final report, non-interference with witnesses, prohibition on committing offences while on bail, passport surrender obligations, and power of cancellation or modification of bail for breach. It also cites the Supreme Court principle that investigation and recovery may proceed while on bail, as per Sushila Aggarwal.

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

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another (2020 (1) KHC 663) - doctrine on bail and continued investigation/cancelation of bail as applicable in NDPS cases.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends innocence and false implication, arguing he was not present at the scene. He asserts that he has been in judicial custody since 03.02.2024, the investigation is complete, and the contraband is of intermediate quantity, making continued detention unnecessary. The defense urges that there is no prima facie case requiring continued confinement and emphasizes the dignity of liberty, speed of relief, and the ability to assist the investigation while on bail. The petitioner also points to past conduct and asserts there is no likelihood of tampering with witnesses given the nature of the case and the recovery made.

Contentions of Respondents

The State opposes bail on the grounds that the investigation is in progress and the petitioner is also accused in Crime No. 417/2023 of the same police station, indicating potential for re-offending. It underscores the NDPS gravity, the ongoing nature of inquiry, and the risk of influencing witnesses or evading prosecution if released. It contends that bail should be denied to ensure the integrity of the investigation and to prevent disposal of evidence or evasion of process.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another2020 (1) KHC 663PositiveThe Kerala High Court cites this Supreme Court principle to justify that the Investigating Officer may investigate and effect recoveries even while the accused is on bail.

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 Muhammed Kutty 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 ``` ``` WEDNESDAY, THE 3[RD] DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 14TH CHAITHRA, 1946 BAIL APPL. NO. 1725 OF 2024 CRIME NO.86/2024 OF KARIPUR POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM ``` ## **`PETITIONER/THIRD ACCUSED:`** ``` MUHAMMED KUTTY, AGED 45 YEARS S/O ALAVIKKUTTY, KALAKKAN THODIKA HOUSE, CHENGYENI, THOTTASSERY, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676505 ``` ``` BY ADV R.RANJITH (MANJERI) ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/STATE & COMPLAINANT:`** ``` STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 ``` ## **`BY SR PP SMT NEEMA T V`** ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` B.A.No.1725 of 2024 -:2:- Dated this the 3[rd] day of April,2024 ## **O R D E R** The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the third accused in Crime No.86/2024 of the Karipur Police Station, Malappuram, registered against the accused (three 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 (in short, ‘the Act’). The petitioner was arrested on 03.02.2024. 2. The essence of the prosecution case is that; on 03.02.2024 at around 21.00 hours, the accused were found in possession of 2 kg of ganja. They were arrested then and there at the spot with the contraband article. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences. B.A.No.1725 of 2024 ## -:3:- 3. Heard Sri. R. Ranjith, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. Neema. T.V., the learned Senior Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent. 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. The petitioner was not there at the place of the occurrence. The Investigating Officer has deliberately implicated the petitioner in the case. In any given case, the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 03.02.2024, the investigation in the case is complete, and recovery has been effected. Moreover, the contraband that has been allegedly seized from the accused is of an intermediate quantity. The petitioner’s continued detention is unnecessary. Hence, the petitioner may be released on bail. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. She submitted that the investigation in B.A.No.1725 of 2024 ## -:4:- the case is in progress. She also stated that the petitioner is an accused in Crime No.417/2023 of the very same police station for allegedly committing a similar offence. If the petitioner is released on bail, there is every likelihood of him committing a similar offence. Hence, the application may be dismissed. 6. On an anxious consideration of the facts, the rival submissions made across the Bar, and the materials placed on record, particularly taking note of the fact that the contraband that was seized from the accused is of an intermediate quantity, that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 03.02.2024, which is 60 days, that the investigation in the case is practically complete, and that the recovery has been effected, I am of the definite view that the petitioner’s further detention is unnecessary. Hence, I am inclined to allow the bail application. B.A.No.1725 of 2024 ## -:5:- 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 alternate Saturdays between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m for a period of three 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; B.A.No.1725 of 2024 ## -:6:- (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. (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 B.A.No.1725 of 2024 -:7:- 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** mtk/03.04.24 B.A.No.1725 of 2024 ## -:8:- ## **`APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 1725/2024`** ``` PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE 1TRUECOPYOFTHEREGISTRATION CERTIFICATEOFTHEPETITIONER'S VEHICLE, NO. KL-65-U-2441 ANNEXURE BTRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE SPECIAL COURT FOR SC/ST (POA) ACT & NDPS ACT CASES, MANJERI IN CRL. M.P. NO. 116/2024, DATED 20/2/2024 ```