High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeApplication allowed; bail granted

Saleem v. State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:BAIL APPL.NO.3425 OF 2024

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • C.S. Dias
Judgment Date
2024-06-04
Court Decision / Holding
The application is allowed; the petitioner Saleem is directed to be released on bail on entering a bond for Rs. 1,00,000 with two solvent sureties of like amount, to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court. Conditions: (i) appearance before IO as required; (ii) no inducement or tampering with witnesses; (iii) no commission of offences while on bail; (iv) surrender of passport or affidavit if none; (v) possible cancellation for violation; (vi) courts below to entertain deletion/modification of bail conditions.
Final Disposition
Application allowed; bail granted

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Saleem

Respondents

  • State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala
  • SMT. Neema T.V., Senior Public Prosecutor

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Adv Nirmal V. Nair

Counsels for Respondents

  • • C.S. Hrithwik, Public Prosecutor

Case Synopsis & Summary

Saleem, the sole accused in Crime No.297/2024 of Tirur Police Station, Malappuram, petitions under section 439 CrPC for bail in a Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS) case alleging possession of 1.9 kg of ganja, arrested on 26 February 2024. The prosecution charges him under NDPS Section 20(b)(ii)(B); the contraband is described as an intermediate quantity. Investigations are pending and the final report has not been laid, while the accused has remained in judicial custody since 26 February 2024. Counsel for the petitioner submits that he is innocent, falsely implicated, and entitled to statutory bail under Section 167(2) on the ground that the investigation is not complete and the maximum punishment is not more than ten years. They contend that Section 36A(4) NDPS is not applicable since the offence falls only under Section 20(b)(ii)(B). The Public Prosecutor opposes bail but concedes the lack of a final report within the stipulated 60 days and invokes the possibility of extending the investigation under Section 36A(4). The Court relies on Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI and Azharudheen v. State of Kerala to hold that once the statutory right accrues, bail can be enlarged even by an oral application, and that compulsory bail under the proviso to Section 167(2) applies when the final report is not laid within the time limit. Ultimately, the application is allowed, with bail granted on bond of Rs 1,00,000 with two sureties and standard conditions.

Provisions of Law Cited

CrPC Section 439NDPS Act Section 20(b)(ii)(B)CrPC Section 167(2)NDPS Act Section 36A(4)

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Right to a speedy investigation and fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution
  • Presumption of innocence
  • Absolute and indefeasible right to bail under Section 167(2) proviso
  • Compulsory bail when final report is not laid within the prescribed period

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends innocence and false implication, with custody since 26.02.2024. He argues the contraband quantity is intermediate and the investigation remains incomplete, so a statutory bail under Section 167(2) should be granted. Section 36A(4) is inapplicable since the case involves only Section 20(b)(ii)(B). Relying on Azharudheen v. State of Kerala, the right accrues and may be enlarged by an oral application.

Contentions of Respondents

The State opposes bail on grounds of possible recidivism given criminal antecedents and argues for extending the investigation under NDPS Section 36A(4). They emphasize that the final report has not yet been laid within 60 days and contend that speedier completion of investigation is necessary, though they concede non-availability of a final report within the initial window.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation(2022) 10 SCC 51PositiveCourt relies on the reasoning that Section 167(2) aims to expedite investigation and safeguard the right to a fair trial, making bail a possibility when the statutory conditions are met.
M. Ravindran v. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence(2021) 2 SCC 485PositiveUsed to support that the right to bail cannot be abridged by unforeseen circumstances and underscores Art. 21 protections in the investigative process.
Azharudheen v. State of Kerala2024 (1) KHC 309PositiveCounting on the principle that once statutory right accrues, bail can be enlarged by an oral application, reinforcing the present decision.

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 Saleem 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 ``` ``` TUESDAY, THE 4[TH] DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 14TH JYAISHTA, 1946 BAIL APPL.NO.3425 OF 2024 ``` ``` CRIME NO.297/2024 OF Tirur Police Station, Malappuram ``` ``` ------------- ``` ## **`PETITIONER/SOLE ACCUSED :-`** ``` SALEEM, AGED 34 YEARS S/O.IBRAHIMKUTTY, RESIDING AT ENIKAKANTEPURAKKAL HOUSE, VAKKAD P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676 502 ``` ``` BY ADV NIRMAL V NAIR ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/STATE :-`** ``` STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682 031 ``` ``` SMT.NEEMA T.V., SR.PP ``` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON ``` ``` 04.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` BAIL APPL.NO.3425 OF 2024 ``` ``` -: 2 :- ``` ## **O R D E R Dated this the 4 th day of June, 2024** The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the sole accused in Crime No.297/2024 of the Tirur Police Station, Malappuram, registered against him, for allegedly committing the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 _(in short, ‘NDPS Act’)_ . The petitioner was arrested on 26.02.2024. 2. The gist of the prosecution case is that; on 26.02.2024, the petitioner was apprehended and in a search conducted on him, he was found in possession of 1.9 kgs of ganja. The accused was arrested on the spot with the contraband article. Thus, the accused has committed the above offence. 3. Heard; Sri.Nirmal V. Nair, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.C.S.Hrithwik, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents. ``` BAIL APPL.NO.3425 OF 2024 ``` ``` -: 3 :- ``` 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusation levelled against him. He has been falsely implicated in the crime. The petitioner has been in judicial custody since 26.02.2024, the contraband involved in this case is of an intermediate quantity, the investigation of the case is not complete and the final report has not been laid. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to statutory bail as contemplated under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Hence, the application may be allowed. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. He submitted that the petitioner is a person with criminal antecedents. If the petitioner is released on bail, there is every likelihood of him committing similar offences. Hence, the application may be dismissed. Nonetheless, it was not disputed that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last 60 days and the final report has not been laid. However, he submitted that an application has been filed under Section 36A(4) of the ``` BAIL APPL.NO.3425 OF 2024 ``` ``` -: 4 :- ``` NDPS Act to enlarge the time period to complete the investigation. 6. The prosecution allegation against the petitioner is that; he was found in possession of 1.9 kgs of ganja and was arrested on the spot with the contraband article. Indisputably, the contraband involved in this case is of an intermediate quantity as per the specification under the NDPS Act. The petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 26.02.2024, which is more than 60 days. 7. The contention of the learned Public Prosecutor that an application is filed under Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act, to enlarge the time period for investigation is untenable because it is only when the offence registered against the accused falls within the purview of Sections 19, 24 or 27 or when the contraband involved is of a commercial quantity that a larger period is granted to the Investigating Officer to complete the investigation within 180 days. If the same cannot be completed within the ``` BAIL APPL.NO.3425 OF 2024 ``` ``` -: 5 :- ``` stipulated time period, the Investigating Officer has given a right to file an application seeking for extension upto a period of one year. 8. In the case on hand, indisputably, the petitioner is alleged to have committed an offence only under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act. Therefore, the provision under Section 36A(4) is not applicable to the facts of the case. It is the bounden duty of the Investigating Officer to have filed the final report within the stipulated period of 60 days since the maximum period of punishment that can be imposed on the petitioner is upto ten years. Thus, the petitioner is entitled to compulsory bail as contemplated under the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 167. 9. Dealing with an identical issue, the Honourable Supreme Court in **Satender Kumar Antil** v. **Central Bureau of Investigation** [(2022) 10 SCC 51], has held in the following manner :- “39. S.167(2) was introduced in the year 1978, giving emphasis to the maximum period of time to complete the investigation. This provision has got a laudable object behind it, which is to ensure an expeditious investigation and a fair ``` BAIL APPL.NO.3425 OF 2024 ``` ## `-: 6 :-` trial, and to set down a rationalised procedure that protects the interests of the indigent sections of society. This is also another limb of Art.21. Presumption of innocence is also inbuilt in this provision. An investigating agency has to expedite the process of investigation as a suspect is languishing under incarceration. Thus, a duty is enjoined upon the agency to complete the investigation within the time prescribed and a failure would enable the release of the accused. The right enshrined is an absolute and indefeasible one, inuring to the benefit of suspect. 40.Such a right cannot be taken away even during any unforeseen circumstances, such as the recent pandemic, as held by this Court in M. Ravindran v. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence [(2021) 2 SCC 485] ………………..” 10. This Court in **Azharudheen** v. **State of Kerala** [2024 (1) KHC 309] has held that once the statutory right of the accused accrues, even an oral application is sufficient to enlarge him on bail. 11. On an overall consideration of the materials placed on record, particularly taking note of the fact that the final report was not laid within the stipulated time period, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to be released on statutory bail as contemplated under Section 167(2) of the Code. ``` BAIL APPL.NO.3425 OF 2024 ``` ``` -: 7 :- ``` 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) each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum, to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court, which shall be subject to the following conditions :- - (i) The petitioner shall 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 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 jurisdictional Court 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; ``` BAIL APPL.NO.3425 OF 2024 ``` ``` -: 8 :- ``` - (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 moved and entertained by the court below. **Sd/C.S. DIAS, JUDGE** Jvt/4.6.2024 ``` BAIL APPL.NO.3425 OF 2024 ``` ``` -: 9 :- ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 3425/2024`** ``` PETITIONER ANNEXURES :- ``` ``` Annexure A1A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR DATED 26-2-2024 IN CRIME NO. 297/2024 OF THE TIRUR POLICE STATION Annexure A2A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 1-4-2024 IN CRL.MP NO. 327/2024 ON THE FILES OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR NDPS ACT CASES, MANJERI ```