Renjith v. State of Kerala; Anoop v. State of Kerala; Sujin G.S alias Sunil G S v. State of Kerala

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Gopinath P.
Judgment Date: 2022-07-13
Court Decision / Holding: Bail applications dismissed; the court found no change in circumstances from earlier denials and adhered to the stringent standards under Section 37 NDPS Act, thereby denying regular bail to all three petitioners.
Final Disposition: Dismissed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Renjith
Anoop
Sujin G.S alias Sunil G S

Respondents

State of Kerala rep by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam
Excise Circle Inspector, Office of Excise Circle Inspector, Kattakada, Pin - 695543

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• M.R.SASITH
• R.K.CHIRUTHA
• RAJITHA V.K
• PREETI S.
• BHAVANA K.K
• VISHNUMAYA M.B.

Counsels for Respondents

• SR.GOVT. PLEADER SRI. C.K. SURESH
• ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE KERALA
• ADDL. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION(AG-11)

Case Synopsis & Summary

Three connected bail petitions under Section 439 CrPC were heard together before a Single Judge of the Kerala High Court (Honourable Justice Gopinath P.) on 13 July 2022. The petitioners—Renjith, Anoop, and Sujin G.S alias Sunil G S—were involved in Crime No. 5/2021 of the Kattakkada Excise Range Office, Thiruvananthapuram, and sought regular bail citing prolonged custody (approximately 281 days total), completion of investigation, and absence of criminal antecedents, arguing that there was no justifiable reason to continue detention. The State, through the Public Prosecutor, opposed bail, relying on NDPS Act provisions. It contended that Section 37 of the NDPS Act requires reasonable grounds to believe the accused are not guilty, and that even where contraband is not recovered, the rigour of Section 37 applies; it also noted that Sections 27A and 29 of the NDPS Act may apply to those involved in financing the drug trade. The court observed that there was no change in circumstances since the earlier denials of bail, and ultimately declined to grant bail in all three petitions, aligning with the position that Section 37 requires cautious consideration of bail in NDPS cases. Appendices include annexures and references to prior orders. The final disposition: bail petitions dismissed.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC)Section 37 of the NDPS ActSection 27A of the NDPS ActSection 29 of the NDPS Act

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contended they have been in custody for about 281 days, the investigation is complete, and the final report has been filed; they have no prior criminal antecedents; there is no compelling reason to continue detention; they sought bail under Section 439 CrPC, arguing lack of ongoing investigation and no risk to public order.

Contentions of Respondents

The State opposed bail, invoking NDPS Act provisions, notably Section 37, and argued that the court must grant bail only upon reasonable grounds to believe the accused are not guilty; it cited the potential applicability of Sections 27A and 29 for those who funded the drug trade. It also relied on the jurisprudence (Nawaz Khan) to emphasize strict bail considerations in NDPS cases.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Union of India through Narcotics Control Bureau, Lucknow v. Md Nawaz Khan	2021 KHC 6503	Positive	Cited to support the proposition that Section 37 requires reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty, and that bail can be denied even in the absence of contraband recovery in certain NDPS contexts.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

# **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** # **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P. ``` ``` WEDNESDAY, THE 13[TH] DAY OF JULY 2022 / 22ND ASHADHA, 1944 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 3766 OF 2022 ``` ``` CRIME NO.05/2021 OF Kattakkada Excise Range Office, ``` ## **`Thiruvananthapuram`** ## **`PETITIONER/S:`** ``` RENJITH AGED 22 YEARS S/O UDAYAN, RESIDING AT VAZHOTTUVILAKOM VEEDU, ATHIYANOOR VILLAGE, RAMAPURAM, NEYYANTHINKARA TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695121 BY ADVS. M.R.SASITH R.K.CHIRUTHA RAJITHA V.K PREETI S. BHAVANA K.K VISHNUMAYA M.B. ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** ``` 1STATE OF KERALA REP BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 2EXCISE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OFFICE OF EXCISE CIRCLE INSPECTOR, KATTAKADA, PIN - 695543 ``` ``` BY SR.GOVT. PLEADER SRI. C.K. SURESH ``` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.07.2022, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..2729/2022, 3834/2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` B.A. Nos.3766, 3834 & 2729 of 2022 :2: # **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P. WEDNESDAY, THE 13[TH] DAY OF JULY 2022 / 22ND ASHADHA, 1944 BAIL APPL. NO. 2729 OF 2022 CRIME NO.5/2021 OF Kattakkada Excise Range Office, ``` ``` Thiruvananthapuram ``` ## **`PETITIONER/S:`** ``` ANOOP AGED 25 YEARS S/O MOHANKUMAR, MOHANA BHAVAN, THEKKEVILA MAIPARAMPU, MANALI, MOONGODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-, PIN - 695144 BY ADVS. M.R.SASITH RAJITHA V.K PREETI S. ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** ``` 1STATE OF KERALA REP BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 2ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE EXCISE COMMISSIONERATE, VIKAS BHAVAN P.O, NANDAVANAM THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033 BY SR.GOVT. PLEADER SRI. C.K. SURESH ``` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.07.2022, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..3766/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` B.A. Nos.3766, 3834 & 2729 of 2022 :3: # **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P. ``` ``` WEDNESDAY, THE 13[TH] DAY OF JULY 2022 / 22ND ASHADHA, 1944 BAIL APPL. NO. 3834 OF 2022 ``` ``` CRIME NO.05/2021 OF Kattakkada Excise Range Office, ``` ## **`Thiruvananthapuram`** ## **`PETITIONER/S:`** ``` SUJIN G.S ALIAS SUNIL G S AGED 22 YEARS, S/O GANGADHARAN, RESIDING AT VATTAVILA PUTHENVEEDU, KOTTUKALKONAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -, PIN - 695501 BY ADVS. M.R.SASITH RAJITHA V.K VISHNUMAYA M.B. R.K.CHIRUTHA ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** ``` 1STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, KOCHI, PIN - 682031 2EXCISE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OFFICE OF EXCISE CIRCLE INSPECTOR KATTAKADA, PIN - 695543 BY ADVS. ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE KERALA ADDL.DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION(AG-11) ``` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.07.2022, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..3766/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` B.A. Nos.3766, 3834 & 2729 of 2022 :4: ## **ORDER** These are applications filed under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking regular bail. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in these cases would vehemently contend that the petitioners have been in custody for 281 days in total. It is submitted that the investigation is over and a final report has been filed in the matter and that the petitioners have no criminal antecedents. It is submitted that there is no reason to continue the petitioners in custody. 3. The learned Senior Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the grant of bail. The circumstances of the case appearing against the petitioners are pointed out. It is submitted that going by the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, this Court must reach a finding that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioners/accused are not guilty of the offence alleged against them. It is submitted that even in respect of persons from whom there was no recovery of any contraband, the rigour of Section 37 will continue to apply, going by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in **Union of India through Narcotics Control Bureau, Lucknow** v. **M..d Nawaz Khan [2021 KHC 6503]** . It is submitted that in respect of persons amongst the accused, against whom the allegation is that they financed the trade in drugs, the provisions of Sections 27A and Section 29 of the NDPS Act will apply and their case cannot be considered as different from that of the other accused. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in these B.A. Nos.3766, 3834 & 2729 of 2022 :5: cases and the learned Senior Public Prosecutor for the State, I am of the opinion that there is absolutely no change of circumstances warranting the taking of a different view from the view taken earlier by me while declining bail to the petitioners. Further, the grounds urged by the petitioners were urged at the time when the original bail applications were considered and were rejected. Therefore, I see no reason to entertain these bail applications. They are accordingly dismissed. Sd/- ## **GOPINATH P. JUDGE** okb/14.7 //True copy// P.S. to Judge B.A. Nos.3766, 3834 & 2729 of 2022 :6: ## **`APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 2729/2022`** ``` PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER IN CRL MP NO: 1726/2021 PASSED BY THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE -I THIRUVANANTHAPURAM Annexure A2TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN BA NO 1121/2022 DATED 18.02.22 OF HIGH COURT ``` B.A. Nos.3766, 3834 & 2729 of 2022 :7: ## **`APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 3834/2022`** ``` PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1 ``` ``` TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRL M P NO: 781/2022 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE SESSIONS JUDGE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ``` B.A. Nos.3766, 3834 & 2729 of 2022 :8: ## **`APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 3766/2022`** ``` PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1 ``` ``` TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER IN CRL MP NO: 1007/2022 IN C C NO. 677/2022, PASSED BY THE COURT OF SESSIONS JUDGE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ```