High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeBail granted

Niyas.C v. State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:BAIL APPL. NO. 2288 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 application is allowed. The petitioner is to be released on bail on a bond of Rs.1,00,000 with two solvent sureties of equal amount, to the satisfaction of the trial court. Conditions include: appearance before the Investigating Officer on Saturdays for two months (or until final report), non-interference with witnesses or tampering with evidence, no commission of any offence while on bail, surrender of passport (or file an affidavit if none), and the court’s power to cancel bail for violations. The order also authorizes continuation of investigation and potential recoveries by the IO even while on bail, citing a guidance from Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr. | 2020 (1) KHC 663.
Final Disposition
Bail granted

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Niyas C.

Respondents

  • State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala
  • The Excise Inspector, Excise Enforcement and Narcotic Special Squad, Malappuram, Malappuram District

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • V. Harikrishnan

Counsels for Respondents

  • • C. S. Hrithwik (Senior Public Prosecutor)

Case Synopsis & Summary

This bail petition, under Section 439 CrPC, arises out of Crime No. 08/2024 registered by the Excise Enforcement and Narcotic Special Squad, Malappuram, alleging offences under Sections 20(b)(ii)B and 29 of the NDPS Act. The petitioner, Niyas C., aged 34, was arrested on 06 February 2024 while transporting 6.03 kilograms of ganja in an autorickshaw KL-55B-9780. The petition contends innocence and false implication, noting the ongoing investigation and completion of recovery. It is argued that the contraband quantity is intermediate and thus the stringent rigour of Section 37 NDPS should not apply, and bail should be granted. The Public Prosecutor opposed bail, but conceded that the contraband is of intermediate quantity and that the petitioner has no prior antecedents. After hearing, the learned judge considered the circumstances: the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 06 February 2024, recovery has been effected, investigation is practically complete, and there is no criminal record. The court held that continued detention is not necessary, and granted bail on a bond of Rs 1,00,000 with two sureties of equal amount, subject to conditions including appearance before IO on Saturdays for two months, non-interference with witnesses, non-commission of offences while on bail, surrender of passport, and power to cancel bail for violation. The order cites Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr. as an authority that investigations can proceed during bail.

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 petitioner contends innocence and false implication, highlighting that he has been in judicial custody since 06.02.2024 and that investigation is practically complete with recovery already effected. He argues the contraband is an intermediate quantity, so the rigour of Section 37 NDPS should not apply, and seeks bail on that premise.

Contentions of Respondents

The prosecution states that the investigation is in progress but acknowledges the contraband as an intermediate quantity and that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents, with no objection to considering bail in light of the ongoing investigation and circumstances.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr.2020 (1) KHC 663PositiveCited as authority that investigations and recoveries may proceed even during bail, supporting the court’s sanction of bail with ongoing investigative powers.

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 Niyas.C 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. 2288 OF 2024` ``` CRIME NO.08/2024 OF Malappuram E.E, Malappuram ``` ## `PETITIONER/ACCUSED:` ``` NIYAS.C, AGED 34 YEARS S/O ABOOBACKER, CHALILKUNNAN VEEDU HOUSE, IRINGALLUR, KUZHIPPURAM, PARAPPUR , KOTTAKAL, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676304 BY ADV V.HARIKRISHNAN ``` ## `RESPONDENT/STATE-DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:` ``` 1STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 2THE EXCISE INSPECTOR EXCISE ENFORCEMENT AND NARCOTIC SPECIAL SQUAD, MALAPPURAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676505 ``` ## `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.2288/2024 ## **-: 2 :-** ## **C. S. DIAS, J.** = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = **B. A. No.2288 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 the 1[st] accused in Crime No.8/2024 of the Excise Enforcement and Anti Narcotic Special Squad, Malappuram, registered against the accused (two 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 [for short, ‘the Act’] The petitioner was arrested on 06.02.2024. 2. The essence of the prosecution allegation is ## B.A No.2288/2024 **-: 3 :-** that, on 06.02.2024 at about 21.00 hrs, the accused 1 and 2 were found transporting 6.03 kgms of ganja in an autorickshaw bearing registration No.KL-55B-9780. The accused were arrested then and there at the spot with the contraband articles. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences. 3. Heard Sri.V. Harikrishnan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.C.S.Hrithwik, 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. In any given case, the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 06.02.2024, the investigation in the case is practically complete and recovery has been effected. Moreover, the contraband ## B.A No.2288/2024 **-: 4 :-** involved in the case is of an intermediate quantity. Therefore, the rigour under Section 37 of the Act does not apply. 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 and the petitioner is a person 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 petitioner has been in judicial custody since 06.02.2024, the contraband involved in the case is of an intermediate quantity, that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents, that the recovery has been effected and investigation in the case is practically ## B.A No.2288/2024 ## **-: 5 :-** complete, I am of the view that petitioner’s continued detention is not necessary. Hence, 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 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 laid, 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 them from disclosing ## B.A No.2288/2024 ## **-: 6 :-** 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; - (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, ## B.A No.2288/2024 ## **-: 7 :-** 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 Anr.**_ [2020 (1) KHC 663]. Sd/- **C. S. DIAS, JUDGE** Sbna/ B.A No.2288/2024 ## **-: 8 :-** ## `APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 2288/2024` ``` PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1TRUE COPY OF CRI.M.P 174/2024 OF THE LEARNED SPECIAL COURT FOR SC/ST (POA) ACT & NDPS ACT CASES, MANJERI ```