Shameer Jainu v. State of Kerala

``` 2025:KER:30838 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO.4965 OF 2025 ``` ``` 1 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** # **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** # **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN ``` ``` WEDNESDAY, THE 9[TH] DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 19TH CHAITHRA, 1947 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 4965 OF 2025 ``` ``` CRIME NO.1196/2023 OF Koraty Police Station, Thrissur ``` ``` AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN Bail Appl. NO.3414 OF 2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA ``` ## **`PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NO.2:`** ``` SHAMEER JAINU AGED 39 YEARS, S/O JAINU, PEECHINGAPPARAMBIL HOUSE, VATTEKKUNNAM DESOM, EDAPPALLY NORTH, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT., PIN – 682 024 ``` ``` BY ADVS. K.MOHAMMED RAFEEQ BIBIN MATHEW P.M.MATHEW AMARNATH R LAL SANALDEV E.P. VISHNUMAYA ANANDAN SONYMON ANTONY AJMAL V. KARIM ``` ## **`RESPONDENT( S )/STATE AND COMPLAINANT:`** ``` 1STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682031 2STATION HOUSE OFFICER KORATTY POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT., PIN - 680308 ``` ## **`BY ADV:`** ``` PP - G SUDHEER ``` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` 2025:KER:30838 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO.4965 OF 2025 ``` ``` 2 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J** **-------------------------------------B.A.No.4965 of 2025 -------------------------------------Dated this the 09[th] day of April, 2025** ## **O R D E R** This Bail Application is filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023. 2. Petitioner is an accused in Crime No.1196/2023 of Koratty Police Station, Thrissur. The above case is registered against the petitioner and another alleging offences punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the NDPS Act'). 3. The prosecution case is that, on 02.11.2023 at about 03.15 PM, the detecting officer obtained secret information that someone is transporting contraband in a vehicle from Chalakkudy to Angamaly. Accordingly, the detecting officer as well as his party proceeded to the National Highway and tried to stop the vehicle. But, the driver of the said vehicle ran away from the car after stopping ``` 2025:KER:30838 ``` ``` 3 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` BAIL APPL. NO.4965 OF 2025 ``` the vehicle. On search, 58.5 Kgs of Ganja was seized. The petitioner, who is the 2[nd] accused was arrested on 02.11.2023. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that, the petitioner filed a bail application as directed by this Court in Annexure-7 order. Even then the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the bail application as per Annexure-8 order. The counsel submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide any condition imposed by this Court, if this Court grants him bail. 6. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. 7. This Court as per Annexure-7 order allowed the petitioner to file a fresh bail application before the trial court. The relevant portion of Annexure-7 order is extracted hereunder: “1. The petitioner is free to file a bail application before the Jurisdictional Court within two weeks raising all the contentions raised in this bail application. ``` 2025:KER:30838 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO.4965 OF 2025 ``` ``` 4 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** 2. If such a bail application is received, the Jurisdictional Court will consider the same and pass appropriate orders in it, in the light of the principle laid down by the Apex Court in **Ankur Chaudhary v. State of Madhya Pradesh** [2024 Live Law (SC) 416], **Nitish Adhikary @ Bapan v. The State of West Bengal** [SLP to Appeal (Crl.) No.5769 of 2022], Hasanujjaman and others v. The State of West Bengal [SLP to Appeal (Crl.) No.3221 of 2023] and also the principle laid down by this Court in **Shuaib A.S v. State of Kerala** [2025 SCC Online 618], within two weeks from the date of receipt of the application.” 8. Now the Sessions Judge dismissed the bail application interpreting the order and also relying another judgment of the Apex Court, which according to the learned Judge is a three bench decision. I am not satisfied the way in which the bail application is disposed by the learned Sessions Judge. I leave it there. 9. Admittedly, the petitioner is in custody from 02.11.2023. In **Ankur Chaudhary v. State of Madhya Pradesh [2024 Live Law (SC) 416],** the Apex Court observed like this:- “6. Now, on examination, the panch witnesses have not supported the case of prosecution. On facts, we ``` 2025:KER:30838 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO.4965 OF 2025 ``` ``` 5 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** are not inclined to consider the Investigation Officer as a panch witness. It is to observe that failure to conclude the trial within a reasonable time resulting in prolonged incarceration militates against the precious fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and as such, conditional liberty overriding the statutory embargo created under Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act may, in such circumstances, be considered.” ## 10. In **Hasanujjaman and others v. The State of West Bengal [SLP to Appeal (Crl.) No.3221 of** **2023]** , the Apex Court considered a case in which the accused were in custody for one year and four months. In that case also the contraband seized is commercial quantity. Even then the Apex Court granted bail. ## 11. In **Nitish Adhikary @ Bapan v. The State of West Bengal [SLP to Appeal (Crl.) No.5769 of 2022]** , the Apex Court observed like this:- “During the course of the hearing, we are informed that the petitioner has undergone custody for a period of 01 year and 07 months as on 09.06.2022. The trial is at a preliminary stage, as only one witness has been examined. The petitioner does not have any criminal ``` 2025:KER:30838 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO.4965 OF 2025 ``` ``` 6 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## antecedents.” 12. Keeping in mind the above dictum laid down by the Apex Court, this Court considered the facts of the case once again. Admittedly, the petitioner is in custody for 1 year and 5 months. I think, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the rigour under Section 37 of the NDPS Act can be relaxed. In such circumstances, I think, the petitioner can be released on bail after imposing stringent conditions. Therefore, this bail application is allowed with the following directions: 1. Petitioner shall be released on bail on executing a bond for Rs.2,00,000/(Rupees Two lakhs only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court. 2. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when required. The petitioner shall cooperate with the investigation and shall not, ``` 2025:KER:30838 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO.4965 OF 2025 ``` ``` 7 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise 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. 3. Petitioner shall not leave India without permission of the jurisdictional Court. 4. Petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected. 5. The observations and findings in this order is only for the purpose of deciding this bail application. The principle laid down by this Court in **Anzar Azeez v. State of Kerala** [2025 SCC OnLine KER 1260] is applicable in this case also. 6. If any of the above conditions are ``` 2025:KER:30838 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO.4965 OF 2025 ``` ``` 8 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** violated by the petitioner, the jurisdictional Court can cancel the bail in accordance to law, even though the bail is granted by this Court. The prosecution is at liberty to approach the jurisdictional court to cancel the bail, if there is any violation of the above conditions. Sd/- **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE** nvj