High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2024-06-05Bail Granted

MUKHIL RAJ v. UNION OF INDIA

Case / Petition Number:BAIL APPL.NO.2329 OF 2024

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C. S. Dias
Judgment Date: 2024-06-05
Court Decision / Holding: Application allowed; bail granted to the petitioner on a bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with two solvent sureties for the same amount, subject to conditions including: (i) appearance before IO every Saturday until final report; (ii) no inducement or tampering with witnesses; (iii) no offence while on bail; (iv) surrender of passport; (v) power to cancel bail on breach; (vi) modification of conditions by the court below; (vii) IO may recover sums or property if necessary while on bail, as per Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi).
Final Disposition: Bail Granted

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

MUKHIL RAJ

Respondents

UNION OF INDIA

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• V.N.Sankarjee
• V.N.Madhusudanan
• R.Udaya Jyothi
• Keerthi B. Chandran
• Vijayan Pillai P.K.
• Sineesh K.M.
• Shilpa P.S.

Counsels for Respondents

• R.VINU RAJ

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a bail application under Section 439 CrPC by Mukhil Raj, the sole accused in NDPS Case No. 10/2023 of the Narcotics Control Bureau, Kochi, challenging a custody extension after his arrest on 05.12.2023 for alleged possession and supply of MDMA. The prosecution’s case rests on a clandestine seizure: a foreign postal envelope addressed to the accused containing MDMA tablets; subsequent search of the accused’s premises recovered MDMA tablets totaling 5.78 g, 3.01 g, and a fourth packet weighing 6.64 g that initially appeared to be MDMA. The combined total alleged by the police was 12.31 g of MDMA. However, the Chemical Analysis Report later indicated that the 6.64 g packet was not MDMA, i.e., a neutral substance, leaving 8.79 g of MDMA as the contraband. The petitioner contends innocence, false implication, and argues that the contraband quantity constitutes an intermediate quantity under NDPS, with no criminal antecedents and six months of judicial custody having elapsed; the investigation is complete and a final report has been laid. The Public Prosecutor opposes bail but concedes the lab results; counsel underscores the gravity of NDPS offences while acknowledging the updated quantity. After considering the material, the court finds that the petitioner’s detention is unnecessary and grants bail subject to sureties, bond, and standard conditions, including appearance, no tampering, and passport surrender. The order cites Sushila Aggarwal et al. for bail recoveries.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Sections 8(c), 22(c), 23(c) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner submits that he is innocent and wrongly implicated. He contends that the contraband involved is of an intermediate quantity, as per Chemical Analysis Report, and that the final seizure included a neutral substance (6.64 g) not MDMA, reducing the MDMA quantity to 8.79 g. He argues that there are no criminal antecedents and that he has already spent about six months in judicial custody; the investigation is complete and a final report has been laid. The petitioner asserts that there is no danger of flight, no risk of tampering with witnesses, and that continued detention would be unjustified in the circumstances. Given the absence of antecedents, the completed investigation, and the intermediate quantity, he prays for bail with appropriate conditions to ensure his appearance and compliance, including bond, sureties, and periodic appearance before the IO. He does not challenge the case on merits but requests release on bail to prepare for trial and to mitigate the harm of prolonged incarceration.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondent submits that bail should be denied or restricted given the gravity of NDPS offences and the initial claim of 12.31 g of MDMA, the identification that 6.64 g was neutral, and the updated 8.79 g as MDMA. They emphasize that the contraband constitutes an 'intermediate quantity' under the NDPS Act, which still signals significant concern given the public interest in preventing drug trafficking. The IO objected to bail on grounds of possibility of flight risk, tampering with witnesses, or hindering investigation; however, the final report is docketed. The respondent asserts that the prosecution has substantial prima facie case and that bail should not be granted unless stringent conditions are satisfied. They acknowledge the intermediate quantity but argue that it does not warrant unconditional release; they rely on statutory framework, and caution that mere passage of time in custody does not automatically entitle bail, and emphasize ensuring the progress and integrity of the proceeding.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another	2020 (1) KHC 663	Positive	Cited as authority for the proposition that recoveries can be effected by the IO even when the accused is on bail; relied upon to justify bail-related recoveries.

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 MUKHIL RAJ v. UNION OF INDIA 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 5[TH] DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 15TH JYAISHTA, 1946 ``` ``` BAIL APPL.NO.2329 OF 2024 ``` ``` CRIME NO.10/2023 OF NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU, KOCHI, Ernakulam ``` ``` --------------- ``` ## **`PETITIONER/ACCUSED :-`** ``` MUKHIL RAJ, AGED 29 YEARS S/O.JANARDHANAN NAIR RAJAN, THIRUVTHIRA, KAIRALI NAGAR, VARKALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 141. ``` ``` BY ADVS. V.N.SANKARJEE V.N.MADHUSUDANAN R.UDAYA JYOTHI KEERTHI B. CHANDRAN VIJAYAN PILLAI P.K. SINEESH K.M. SHILPA P.S. ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT :-`** ``` UNION OF INDIA, ``` ``` THROUGH SUB INSPECTOR/JUNIOR, INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, NARCOTIC CONTROL BUREAU, COCHIN ZONAL UNIT, KENDRIYA BHAVAN, A1 BLOCK, 2ND FLOOR, KAKKANAD, COCHIN, PIN-682 030 THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 031 ``` ``` BY ADV R.VINU RAJ ``` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` BAIL APPL.NO.2329 OF 2024 ``` ``` -: 2 :- ``` ## **O R D E R** ## **Dated this the 5 th day of June, 2024** The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the sole accused in OR No.10/2023 of Narcotics Control Bureau, Kochi, Ernakulam, which is registered against the accused, for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 22(c), 23(c) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 _(in short, ‘NDPS Act’)_ . The petitioner was arrested on 05.12.2023. 2. The essence of the prosecution case is that; on 01.12.2023, at around 11.45 hrs., a foreign postal envelope, believed to be containing MDMA, was addressed to the petitioner. On getting secret information, the respondent with two independent witnesses reached the foreign post office and opened the envelope and found 10 tablets believed to be MDMA/Ecstasy having a weight of 5.78 gms. Accordingly, a search was conducted at the ``` BAIL APPL.NO.2329 OF 2024 ``` ``` -: 3 :- ``` premises of the accused and 7 MDMA tablets having a weight of 3.01 gms and white coloured crystal substance believed to be MDMA having a weight of 6.64 gms were seized from the petitioner's room. Thus, a total quantity of 12.31 gms of MDMA were seized. The petitioner was arrested on 05.12.2023. Thus, the accused has committed the above offences. 3. Heard; Sri.V.N.Sankarjee, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Vinu Raj, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent. 4. The learned counsel appearing 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 has reliably learnt that, as per the Chemical Analysis Report, the contraband involved in this case is of an intermediate quantity. The petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last six months, the investigation in the case is complete and final ``` BAIL APPL.NO.2329 OF 2024 ``` ``` -: 4 :- ``` report has been laid. The petitioner does not have criminal antecedents. Hence, the application may be allowed. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. The Investigating Officer has filed a bail objection report, _inter alia_ , reiterating the prosecution allegation. However, he has produced the Chemical Analysis Report as directed by this Court, which shows that only the packets weighing 5.78 gms and 3.01 gms are MDMA and the packet weighing 6.64 gms has tested negative for MDMA. Thus, the contraband involved in this case is 8.79 gms. 6. The prosecution was launched against the petitioner on the allegation that he was found in conscious possession of 5.78 gms, 3.01 gms and 6.64 gms; thus, totalling to 12.31 gms of MDMA. In the Chemical Analysis Report, it has turned out that 6.64 gms is not MDMA, but it is only a neutral substance. Therefore, as matter stands ``` BAIL APPL.NO.2329 OF 2024 ``` ``` -: 5 :- ``` now, the contraband involved in this case is 8.79 gms of MDMA, which is of an intermediate quantity. The petitioner also does not have any criminal antecedent. 7. On an anxious consideration of the facts, the rival submissions made across the Bar and the materials placed on record, especially on considering the fact that the contraband involved in this case is of an intermediate quantity, the petitioner does not have criminal antecedents, the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last six months, the investigation in this case is complete and final report has been laid, I am of the view that the petitioner's further detention is unnecessary. Hence, I am inclined to allow the application, but subject to 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 sureties each for the like sum, to the ``` BAIL APPL.NO.2329 OF 2024 ``` ``` -: 6 :- ``` satisfaction of the court having jurisdiction, which shall be subject to the following conditions :- - (i) The petitioner shall appear before the on - Investigating Officer every Saturday between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m. till the final report is filed. He shall also appear before him 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 them from disclosing such facts to the jurisdictional Court 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 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 ``` BAIL APPL.NO.2329 OF 2024 ``` ``` -: 7 :- ``` 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 moved and entertained by 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** Jvt/5.6.2024 ``` BAIL APPL.NO.2329 OF 2024 ``` ``` -: 8 :- ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 2329/2024`** ## **`PETITIONER ANNEXURES :-`** ``` Annexure-ITRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 6.3.2024 IN CRL. M.C. NO. 629/2024 OF THE HONOURABLE COURT OF SESSIONS, ERNAKULAM DIVISION ``` ## **`RESPONDENT ANNEXURES :-`** ``` Document No.1Certified copy of Chemical Analysis Report bearing Receipt No. 11599/2023 dated 8.2.2024 Document No.2Certified copy of Chemical Analysis Reports bearing Receipt No. 11862/2023 dated 29.2.2024 ```