Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeBail granted

Shameer T.S v. State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:BA No.3814 of 2024

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • C.S. Dias
Judgment Date
2024-05-29
Court Decision / Holding
Bail granted; petitioner SHAMEER T.S. released on bail on a bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with two sureties, subject to conditions including periodic appearance before the IO, prohibition on inducement or tampering with witnesses, no commission of offences while on bail, passport surrender or affidavit of no passport, and potential modification or cancellation of conditions. The order follows a finding that the contraband is methamphetamine of intermediate quantity, the petitioner has no antecedents, custody has extended to 64 days, and investigation is practically complete. The court also cites a Supreme Court principle (via Sushila Aggarwal) permitting continued investigation and action while on bail.
Final Disposition
Bail granted

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Shameer T.S

Respondents

  • State of Kerala

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Nireesh Mathew

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Smt Seetha S

Case Synopsis & Summary

Shameer T.S., the third accused in Crime No.1822/2023 of Ettumanoor Police Station, approached the Kerala High Court for bail under Section 439 CrPC. The prosecution alleged the accused possessed 46.55 grams of MDMA and 5.75 grams of ganja, triggering sections 22(c), 8, and 20(b)(ii)(A) of the NDPS Act, 1985. The petitioner was arrested on 25.03.2024. The defense asserted innocence and claimed false implication, arguing the contraband is methamphetamine, not MDMA, as later indicated by a chemical analysis report dated 20.05.2024 from RFL Kochi/Thripunithura, suggesting the contraband falls under intermediate quantity rather than commercial quantity. The petitioner has no prior criminal record and has remained in judicial custody for 64 days, with investigation described as practically complete and recovery already effected. The prosecution conceded the report’s conclusion but contended the investigation was ongoing and that the petitioner’s release could enable recidivism. The court noted the shift from MDMA to methamphetamine and the reclassification to intermediate quantity, along with the petitioner’s lack of antecedents and the extended custody period, and concluded that further detention was unnecessary. It granted bail on a bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with two solvent sureties, subject to conditions including regular appearance before the IO, prohibition against inducement or tampering with witnesses, prohibition on new offences, passport surrender, and potential modification of conditions; citing Sushila Aggarwal for allowing continued investigation while on bail. The bail order directs release of the accused with safeguards to ensure compliance and ongoing investigation.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Sections 22(c), 8, 20(b)(ii)(A) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends innocence and false implication, asserting no material links to the alleged offences and claiming the contraband is methamphetamine rather than MDMA per a chemical analysis dated 20.05.2024. He has no criminal antecedents and his 64 days of judicial custody is excessive given that the investigation is practically complete and the contraband has already been recovered. The defense emphasizes the change in quantity from commercial MDMA to intermediate quantity methamphetamine, arguing that this reduces the justification for stringent pre-trial detention under NDPS. The petitioner seeks bail with appropriate conditions to ensure presence before the IO and to prevent tampering with witnesses, asserting that release would not impede justice or public safety.

Contentions of Respondents

The State counters that investigation is still in progress and there remains a risk of the accused influencing witnesses or committing similar offences if released. While acknowledging the chemical report identifying methamphetamine, the prosecution highlights the prior claim of commercial quantity MDMA and maintains the need for continued scrutiny during investigation. It contends bail should not be granted freely, given the NDPS regime and potential for recidivism, and requests that the court retain significant conditions or deny bail altogether depending on the evolving stage of the investigation.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another2020 (1) KHC 663PositiveCited for the principle that investigations and certain recoveries can proceed even while the accused is on bail, supporting the court’s approach to bail conditions and ongoing investigation.

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 Shameer T.S 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 ``` ``` WEDNESDAY, THE 29[TH] DAY OF MAY 2024 / 8TH JYAISHTA, 1946 BAIL APPL. NO. 3814 OF 2024 ``` ``` CRIME NO.1822/2023 OF ETTUMANOOR POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM ``` ## **`PETITIONER/ACCUSED:`** ``` SHAMEER.T.S, AGED 33 YEARS S/O. THAHA, T.S MANZIL, PARUTHIYIL AMBALAM BHAGOM, VANAVANCHERRY (P.O), EDAKKODE VILLAGE, ATTINGAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695103 BY ADV NIREESH MATHEW ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:`** ``` STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI, PIN - 682031 ``` ## **`OTHER PRESENT:`** ``` BY SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT SEETHA S ``` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` B.A.No.3814 of 2024 -:2:- Dated this the 29[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 third accused in Crime No.1822/2023 of Ettumanoor Police Station, Kottayam, registered against the accused for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 22 (c), 8, 20 (b) (ii)(A) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The petitioner was arrested on 25.03.2024. 2. The gist of the prosecution case is that: on 26.11.2023, at around 23.20 hours, the accused 1 and 2 were found in possession of 46.55 grams of MDMA and 5.75 grams of ganja. They were arrested at the spot with the contraband articles. Subsequently, it was unveiled that the third accused was also involved in the crime. Thus, the accused have committed the above ## B.A.No.3814 of 2024 ## -:3:- offences. 3. Heard; Sri. Nireesh Mathew, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. Seetha.S, the learned Public Prosecutor. 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. There is no material to show that the petitioner has any complicity in the case. The petitioner has reliably learnt that the contraband involved in the case is ‘methamphetamine’ and not ‘MDMA’, as alleged by the prosecution. In any given case, the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last 64 days, the petitioner has no criminal antecedents, 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. ## B.A.No.3814 of 2024 ## -:4:- 5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. She submitted that the investigation in the case is in progress. She also stated that if the petitioner is let off on bail, there is every likelihood of him committing similar offences. Hence, the application may be dismissed. However, she made available the chemical analysis report issued by the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Kochi, Thripunithura, dated 20.05.2024, which shows that one of the contraband articles is ‘methamphetamine’ and not ‘MDMA’. She also did not dispute the fact that the . petitioner doesn't have any criminal antecedents 6. The prosecution was lodged against the accused on the accusation that the accused were found in possession of 46.55 grams of MDMA and 5.75 grams of ganja, which are of commercial quantity. Since the contraband of 46.55 grams of MDMA falls within the specification of commercial quantity, the rigour under ## B.A.No.3814 of 2024 ## -:5:- Section 37 of the Act is applicable. However, now, as per the chemical analysis report, it has turned out that the contraband is ‘methamphetamine’ and not ‘MDMA’ as alleged by the prosecution. Hence, the contraband is of an intermediate quantity as per the specification under the Act. 7. 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 chemical analysis report as referred to above, which shows that the contraband involved in the case is of an intermediate quantity and the other contraband is of a small quantity, and further considering that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents, that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last 64 days, 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 B.A.No.3814 of 2024 ## -:6:- 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 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 ## B.A.No.3814 of 2024 -:7:- 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 B.A.No.3814 of 2024 ## -:8:- 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 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** mtk/29.05.24