High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeBail Granted

Muhammed Shibil K v. State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:BAIL APPL. NO. 2911 OF 2024
Neutral Citation:.null.

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • C.S. Dias
Judgment Date
2024-04-11
Court Decision / Holding
The application is allowed; the petitioner is to be released on bail on a bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with two solvent sureties of Rs. 1,00,000 each, subject to conditions including regular appearance, non-tampering, no commission of further offences, surrender of passport, and the court may cancel or modify bail as needed.
Final Disposition
Bail Granted

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Muhammed Shibil K

Respondents

  • State of Kerala

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • V. S. Mansoor
  • • Akhil Binoy
  • • Sanin V. U.

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala

Case Synopsis & Summary

Under section 439 CrPC, the sole accused in Crime No.14/2024 of Palakkad Excise Range moved for bail. The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances offence arises from possession of 7.070 kg of ganja on 24 February 2024; the accused has remained in custody since that date. He pleads innocence and contends a false implication, highlighting no criminal antecedents and the contraband quantity being only intermediate. The prosecution states the investigation is in progress, but recovery has already been effected and the investigation is almost complete. Counsel for the petitioner urges release on bail, arguing no flight risk and that continued detention is unnecessary. The Public Prosecutor opposes bail citing ongoing investigation and the possibility of reoffending on release, though acknowledges lack of antecedents and the intermediate quantity. After considering the facts, the court notes the intermediate quantity, absence of antecedents, and near completion of the investigation, and holds that further detention is unnecessary. The court grants bail on a Rs.1,00,000 bond with two solvent sureties, and imposes conditions including regular appearance before the IO on Saturdays for two months, no tampering or inducement, no new offences, passport surrender, and the court's power to cancel or modify bail; it also cites Sushila Aggarwal for the ongoing- investigation principle.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 439 of Cr.P.C., 1973Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Continuing investigations during bail are permissible (as per Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, 2020 (1) KHC 663)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends innocence and false implication, has no criminal antecedents, and has been in custody since 24.02.2024. He argues the contraband quantity is intermediate, the investigation is practically complete, and there is no danger in releasing him on bail; seeks bail with appropriate conditions.

Contentions of Respondents

The Public Prosecutor submits that the investigation is in progress and there is a likelihood of the petitioner committing similar offences if released; however, she concedes no antecedents and recognizes the intermediate quantity, and argues bail should not be granted unless further investigation is completed.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another2020 (1) KHC 663PositiveCited to support that investigations and recoveries can occur during bail, illustrating permissible ongoing judicial procedure.

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 Shibil K 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 ``` ``` THURSDAY, THE 11[TH] DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 22ND CHAITHRA, 1946 BAIL APPL. NO. 2911 OF 2024 ``` ``` CRIME NO.14/2024 OF Palakkad Excise Range Office, Palakkad ``` ## **`PETITIONER/ACCUSED:`** ``` MUHAMMED SHIBIL K AGED 24 YEARS ``` ``` SON OF ABDUL SALAM, KOLANI HOUSE, KILIRANI, KARAKURUSSI POST, KARAKURUSSI, PALAKKAD (DIST), PIN - 678595 ``` ``` BY ADVS. V.S.MANSOOR AKHIL BINOY SANIN V.U. ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:`** ``` STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 ``` ## **`OTHER PRESENT:`** ## **`PP SMT SHYNIMOL V O`** ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` B.A.No.2911 of 2024 ## -:2:- Dated this the 11[th] 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 sole accused in Crime No.14/2024 of Excise Range Office, Palakkad, registered against him for allegedly committing the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The petitioner was arrested on 24.02.2024. 2. The crux of the prosecution case is that: on 24.02.2024, at around 18.25 hours, the accused was in possession of 7.070 kg of ganga. The accused was arrested then and there at the spot with the contraband article. Thus, the accused has committed the above offence. 3. Heard; Sri. V.S. Mansoor, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. Shynimol.V.O., B.A.No.2911 of 2024 ## -:3:- the learned 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. In any given case, the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 24.02.2024, the petitioner has 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 petitioner’s further detention is unnecessary. Hence, the application may be allowed. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. She submitted that the investigation in the case is in progress. She also submitted that if the petitioner is let off on bail, there is every likelihood of him committing similar offences. Nonetheless, she did B.A.No.2911 of 2024 ## -:4:- not dispute the fact that the petitioner doesn't 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 petitioner has no criminal antecedents, that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 24.02.2024, that the investigation in the case is practically complete, and that the recovery has been effected, 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 B.A.No.2911 of 2024 ## -:5:- 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 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. 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; B.A.No.2911 of 2024 -:6:- (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 the petitioner is on bail as laid down by the Hon'ble B.A.No.2911 of 2024 -:7:- Supreme Court in **Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another [2020 (1) KHC 663]** . Sd/- **C.S.DIAS,JUDGE** mtk/11.04.24 ## B.A.No.2911 of 2024 -:8:- ## **`APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 2911/2024`** ``` PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure 1A ``` ``` A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED:- 26/03/2024 IN CRL.M.C NO: 1574/2024 OF COURT OF SESSIONS, PALAKKAD DIVISION ```