High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2024-04-01Bail granted

NIBIN ABHILASH and SUDHEESH v. STATE OF KERALA

Case / Petition Number:BAIL APPL. NO. 2379 OF 2024

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C. S. Dias
Judgment Date: 2024-04-01
Court Decision / Holding: The bail application is allowed. The petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on a bond of Rs.1,00,000 with two solvent sureties for the like sum. Conditions include: (i) appearance before the Investigating Officer every Saturday for two months or until final report; (ii) refrain from inducement, threats, or tampering with witnesses; (iii) no commission of offences while on bail; (iv) surrender of passport if available; (v) flexibility to cancel or modify bail conditions for breach; and (vi) investigation and recoveries may proceed even while on bail as per the principle laid down in Sushila Aggarwal. The order cites Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr. for these provisions.
Final Disposition: Bail granted

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

NIBIN ABHILASH
SUDHEESH

Respondents

STATE OF KERALA

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Rameez Nooh
• Fathima K.

Counsels for Respondents

• C. S. Hrithwik

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a bail application under Section 439 CrPC filed on behalf of accused nos. 1 and 2 in Crime No. 172/2024 of Elamakkara Police Station, Ernakulam, arising from alleged possession of ganja amounting to 1.332 grams intended for sale at a house on Padam Road, Edapally South Village, Ernakulam, under the NDPS Act, 1985. The accused were arrested on 26 February 2024. The prosecution contends that the accused were found in conscious possession of the contraband, the quantity being intermediate and meant for sale. The petitioners claim innocence and false implication, with no criminal antecedents, and emphasize that the contraband quantity is intermediate. They have been in judicial custody since 26 February 2024, the investigation is practically complete, and the recovery has been effected; hence, further detention is unnecessary. The State opposing bail concedes the intermediate quantity and lack of antecedents but stresses ongoing investigation. The learned judge, considering the custody duration, the intermediate quantity, lack of antecedents, completed recovery, and near-total investigation, concludes that continued detention is not necessary and grants bail subject to conditions. The order cites Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr. for allowing investigation and recoveries to proceed even while on bail. The petition is allowed, with bail on bond of Rs.1,00,000 and standard bail conditions.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Section 20(b)(ii)B of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contend they are totally innocent and falsely implicated. They point out no criminal antecedents and emphasize that the contraband is of intermediate quantity. They have remained in judicial custody since 26.02.2024, and the investigation is practically complete with recovery already effected. In these circumstances, continued detention is unnecessary, and bail should be granted, with appropriate conditions to ensure cooperation with the investigation and to prevent tampering with evidence or witnesses.

Contentions of Respondents

The State, through the Public Prosecutor, opposes bail but concedes that the contraband is of intermediate quantity and that the petitioners have no criminal antecedents and that the investigation is substantially complete. It is argued that the ongoing investigation justifies some restriction on liberty and that precautionary conditions are necessary to prevent interference with witnesses or with the investigation; however, the particulars of the case indicate the investigation is nearing completion.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr.	2020 (1) KHC 663	Positive	The judgment relies on the principle that, even on bail, investigation may continue and recoveries may be effected; the referenced Supreme Court decision supports such conditions.

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 NIBIN ABHILASH and SUDHEESH 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 ``` ``` MONDAY, THE 1[ST] DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 12TH CHAITHRA, 1946 ``` ## `BAIL APPL. NO. 2379 OF 2024` ``` CRIME NO.172/2024 OF ELAMAKKARA POLICE STATION, Ernakulam PETITIONERS: ``` - `1 NIBIN ABHILASH, AGED 23 YEARS, S/O ABHILASH BABY MUNDAMATAM, CHITTADI ESTATE, CHITTADI, EDAKKUNNAM, PARATHODE, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686512` ``` 2SUDHEESH, AGED 23 YEARS S/O SARASAKUMAR MANGATTUKUNNATH HO, AKALUR PO, LAKKIDI PERUR, OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD, PIN - 679101 BY ADVS. ``` ``` RAMEEZ NOOH FATHIMA K. ``` ## `RESPONDENT:` ``` STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 ``` ## `OTHER PRESENT:` ``` SR PP SRI C S HRITHWIK ``` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON ``` ``` 01.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` B.A No.2379/2024 ## **-: 2 :-** ## **C. S. DIAS, J.** = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = **B. A. No.2379 of 2024** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 1[st] day of April, 2024 ## **ORDER** The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by accused 1 and 2 in Crime No.172/2024 of the Elamakkara Police Station, Ernakulam, registered against the accused, for allegedly committing the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)B of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [for short, ‘the N.D.P.S Act’]. The petitioners were arrested on 26.02.2024. 2. The crux of the prosecution case is that, on 26.02.2024 at around 21.20 hrs, the accused were found in conscious possession of 1.332gms of ganja, B.A No.2379/2024 **-: 3 :-** which was meant for the purpose of sale in a house at Padam Road, Edapally South Village, Ernakulam. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences. 3. Heard Sri.Rameez Nooh, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri.C.S.Hrithwik, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are totally innocent of the accusations levelled against them. They have been falsely implicated in the crime. The petitioners are persons without any criminal antecedents. Moreover, the contraband involved in the case is of an intermediate quantity. In any given case, the petitioners have been in judicial custody since 26.02.2024, the investigation in the case is practically complete and recovery has been effected. Therefore, the petitioners B.A No.2379/2024 ## **-: 4 :-** further detention is unnecessary. Hence, the application may be allowed. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. It is submitted that the investigation in the case is in progress. Nonetheless, he conceded to the fact that the contraband involved in the case is of an intermediate quantity, the petitioners have been in judicial custody since 26.02.2024, the investigation in the case is practically complete and the petitioners are persons without any criminal antecedents. 6. After bestowing my anxious consideration to the facts, the rival submissions made across the Bar, the materials placed on record, particularly taking note of the fact that the petitioners have been in judicial custody since 26.02.2024, the contraband involved in the case is of an intermediate quantity, that the petitioners have no criminal antecedents, that the B.A No.2379/2024 ## **-: 5 :-** recovery has been effected and investigation in the case is practically complete, I am of the view that petitioners continued detention is not necessary. Hence, the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail. In the result, the application is allowed, by directing the petitioners to be released on bail on they 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 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 laid, 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 B.A No.2379/2024 ## **-: 6 :-** such facts to the court or to any Police Officer or tamper with the evidence in any manner, whatsoever; - (iii) The petitioners shall not commit any offence while they are 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 information, if any, given by the petitioners even while the B.A No.2379/2024 ## **-: 7 :-** petitioners are on bail as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in _**Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr.**_ [2020 (1) KHC 663]. Sd/- **C. S. DIAS, JUDGE** Sbna/ B.A No.2379/2024 ## **-: 8 :-** ## `APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 2379/2024` ``` PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 172/2024 OF ELAMAKKARA POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM CITY ```