Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeBail granted; accused released on bail with spe...

Shabin v. State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:B.A.No.4180 of 2024

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • C. S. Dias
Judgment Date
2024-05-24
Court Decision / Holding
The bail application is allowed; the petitioner Shabin is to be released on bail on execution of a bond for Rs. 1,00,000 with two solvent sureties. Conditions imposed include: (i) appearance before the Investigating Officer on Saturdays for two months or till final report; (ii) refrain from inducing or tampering with witnesses or evidence; (iii) shall not commit any offence while on bail; (iv) surrender of passport if available; (v) court may cancel bail for violation; (vi) applications to modify/bale conditions to be filed before the court below; (vii) Investigating Officer may continue to investigate and recover as necessary, in line with the Supreme Court judgment in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another.
Final Disposition
Bail granted; accused released on bail with specified conditions and bonds.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Shabin

Respondents

  • State of Kerala

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Francis Assisi
  • • Ajeesh S. Brite
  • • Amrutha P S
  • • Manju Luckose

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Senior Public Prosecutor Sri C S Hrithwik

Case Synopsis & Summary

Shabin, aged 26, is the first accused in Crime No.29/2024 of the Varapuzha Excise Range Office, charged under Sections 22(b) and 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985. The bail petition under Section 439 CrPC was heard by the Kerala High Court on 24 May 2024. The prosecution alleges that on 17 April 2024 at about 23:45 hours, the accused were found in possession of 10 grams of Methamphetamine, seized at the spot, leading to their arrest. The petitioner asserts total innocence and false implication, having no criminal antecedents and being in judicial custody since 18 April 2024. He submits that the quantity is intermediate and that the investigation is practically complete with recovery effected; hence further detention is unnecessary. The public prosecutor opposed bail, while conceding absence of antecedents and intermediate quantity, arguing that the ongoing investigation and the likelihood of reoffending justify continued detention. After weighing these factors, including the intermediate quantity, absence of prior offences, the extended custody since 18 April 2024, and the substantial progress in investigation, the court finds that further detention is unwarranted and grants bail. The order directs release on bond of Rs 1,00,000 with two solvent sureties, and imposes conditions (i)–(vii), including appearance before IO, non-tampering with witnesses, no new offences, passport surrender, and a provision allowing cancellation of bail on violation, citing Sushila Aggarwal.

Provisions of Law Cited

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

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends total innocence and false implication in Crime No.29/2024. He has been in judicial custody since 18.04.2024 and has no criminal antecedents. The contraband, 10 grams of Methamphetamine, is described as an intermediate quantity. The investigation is practically complete and recovery has been effected. Further detention is unnecessary. The defense argues that bail should be granted under Section 439 CrPC, given the lack of antecedents and the relatively small quantity, while ensuring appropriate conditions to safeguard the investigation and prevent flight or tampering with evidence. It asserts that the police can continue the investigation and the court should rely on established bail principles to balance liberty with public interest.

Contentions of Respondents

The State submits that the investigation is ongoing and there is a risk of reoffending if the accused is released, despite conceding no antecedents and the intermediate quantity. Bail should be conditional and not guaranteed as a matter of right, as NDPS offences bear significant concern for public safety. The State contends that the court should weigh public interest and the integrity of the investigative process, and that appropriate bail conditions can safeguard the ongoing inquiry while ensuring the accused’s appearance.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another2020 (1) KHC 663PositiveCited as authority for allowing investigation to proceed and for bail conditions; the court applies the principle from this Supreme Court decision to permit ongoing inquiry while on bail.

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 Shabin 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 ``` ``` FRIDAY, THE 24[TH] DAY OF MAY 2024 / 3RD JYAISHTA, 1946 BAIL APPL. NO. 4180 OF 2024 ``` ``` CRIME NO.29/2024 OF VARAPPUZHA EXCISE RANGE OFFICE, ``` ## **`ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PETITIONER/ACCUSED:`** ``` SHABIN AGED 26 YEARS S/O SHAJI ASHARIPARMBU VEEDU MANJUMMAL KADVU, ELOOR VILLAGE ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683501 ``` ``` BY ADVS. FRANCIS ASSISI AJEESH S.BRITE AMRUTHA P S MANJU LUCKOSE ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:`** ``` STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 ``` ``` BY SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI C S HRITHWIK ``` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` B.A.No.4180 of 2024 ## -:2:- Dated this the 24[th] day of May,2024 ## **O R D E R** The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the first accused in Crime No.29/2024 of Excise Range Office, Varapuzha, registered against the accused (two in number) for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 22(b) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The petitioner was arrested on 18.04.2024. 2. The crux of the prosecution case is that: on 17.04.2024, at around 23.45 hours, the accused were found in possession of 10 grams of Methamphetamine. The accused were arrested then and there at the spot with the contraband article. Thus, the accused have committed the above offence. 3. Heard; Sri. Francis Assisi, the learned counsel B.A.No.4180 of 2024 -:3:- appearing for the petitioner and Sri.C.S.Hrithwik., the learned Senior Public Prosecutor. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusations leveled against him. He has been falsely implicated in the crime. In any given case, the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 18.04.2024, the petitioner has no criminal antecedents, the contraband that was allegedly seized from the accused is of an intermediate quantity, the investigation in the case is practically complete, and the recovery has been effected. Therefore, the petitioner’s further detention is unnecessary. Hence, the application may be allowed. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. He submitted that the investigation in the case is in progress. He also submitted that if the petitioner is let off on bail, there is every likelihood of B.A.No.4180 of 2024 ## -:4:- him committing similar offences. Nonetheless, he did not dispute the fact that the petitioner doesn't have any criminal antecedents and the contraband involved in the case is of an intermediate quantity. 6. After bestowing my anxious consideration to the facts, the rival submissions made across the Bar, and the materials placed on record, especially on considering the fact that the contraband allegedly seized from the accused is of an intermediate quantity, that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents, that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 18.04.2024, that the investigation in the case is practically complete, and that the recovery has been effected, I am of the view that the petitioner’s further detention is unnecessary. Hence, I hold that 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 B.A.No.4180 of 2024 -:5:- 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 filed, 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 him from disclosing 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; B.A.No.4180 of 2024 -:6:- (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, given by the petitioner even while B.A.No.4180 of 2024 -:7:- 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** rmm/24/5/2024 ## B.A.No.4180 of 2024 -:8:-