High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2024-03-14Bail granted

Shiyas v. State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:BAIL APPL. NO. 1791 OF 2024

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C. S. Dias
Judgment Date: 2024-03-14
Court Decision / Holding: The application is allowed. The petitioner is to be released on bail on a bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with two solvent sureties for the same amount. Conditions: (i) He shall appear before the Investigating Officer every Saturday between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m. for two months or until final report, (ii) he shall not induce or tamper with witnesses or evidence, (iii) he shall not commit any offence while on bail, (iv) he shall surrender his passport or file an affidavit if none, (v) violation permits cancellation of bail, (vi) modification requests allowed, and (vii) the Investigating Officer may continue investigation and effect recoveries, if necessary, even on bail. The court cites Sushila Aggarwal for the authority to impose such conditions and to supervise the investigation while on bail.
Final Disposition: Bail granted

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

SHIYAS, AGED 24 YEARS, S/O DIRSHAD, VATTAPARAMBIL, PARAKULAM, NARUKARA P.O, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT., PIN - 676122

Respondents

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KOLATHUR POLICE STATION
KOLATHUR POLICE STATION, KOLATHUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT., PIN - 679338

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• SIDHARTH O.
• SUSANTH SHAJI
• ALBIN A. JOSEPH

Counsels for Respondents

• PP SMT SHYNIMOL V O

Case Synopsis & Summary

Shiyas, the first accused in Crime No.146/2024 of Kolathur Police Station, Malappuram, seeks bail under Section 439 CrPC in a case registered under Sections 22(b) and 29 of the NDPS Act for alleged possession of MDMA. The prosecution alleges that on 01.02.2024, the accused was found in possession of 2.98 grams of MDMA, with co-accused amounts of 0.23 gram and 0.05 gram, totaling 3.26 grams. The petitioner has been in judicial custody since 01.02.2024; the investigation is described as practically complete, with recoveries effected. The defense contends total innocence and false implication, stressing no criminal antecedents and willingness to abide by stringent conditions. They argue that the contraband quantity is intermediate and that ongoing investigation would not be hindered by release on bail. The Public Prosecutor opposed bail but conceded that the contraband is of intermediate quantity and that there are no antecedents, noting the investigation is in progress. After weighing the materials, the court finds that continued detention is unnecessary and grants bail. The order imposes bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with two solvent sureties for equal amounts, and conditions including regular appearance before the IO on Saturdays for two months, propagation of non-tampering with witnesses, prohibition on offense commission while on bail, passport surrender or affidavit, and the possibility of cancellation or modification of bail for violation. The court also cites Sushila Aggarwal for the authority to impose such conditions and supervise investigations while on bail.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC)Sections 22(b) and 29 of NDPS Act, 1985

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, 2020 (1) KHC 663 – Bail conditions and power to impose conditions under CrPC 439.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner’s counsel argued his total innocence and false implication. Arrested on 01.02.2024, he has remained in judicial custody; investigation is substantially complete and recoveries have been effected. Even if the FIR allegations are assumed true, the contraband is of intermediate quantity. The petitioner has no criminal antecedents and is ready to comply with stringent conditions, including regular court appearances and not tampering with witnesses, to secure his release on bail.

Contentions of Respondents

The Public Prosecutor opposed bail, but conceded that the contraband quantity is intermediate and that the petitioner has no prior antecedents; the investigation is ongoing. The state argued the seriousness of NDPS offences and the need to maintain the integrity of the investigation, though not detailed beyond these points.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another	2020 (1) KHC 663	Positive	Cited to justify the power to impose bail conditions under CrPC 439 and to allow continued investigation 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 Shiyas 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 ``` ``` THURSDAY, THE 14[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 24TH PHALGUNA, 1945 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 1791 OF 2024 ``` ``` CRIME NO.146/2024 OF KOLATHUR POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM ``` ## **`PETITIONER/ACCUSED:`** ``` SHIYAS AGED 24 YEARS S/O DIRSHAD, VATTAPARAMBIL, PARAKULAM, NARUKARA P.O, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT., PIN - 676122 ``` ``` BY ADVS. SIDHARTH O. SUSANTH SHAJI ALBIN A. JOSEPH ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:`** ``` 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 ``` ``` 2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KOLATHUR POLICE STATION ``` ``` KOLATHUR POLICE STATION, KOLATHUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT., PIN - 679338 ``` ## **`BY PP SMT SHYNIMOL V O`** ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` B.A.No.1791 of 2024 **==> picture [25 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** Dated this the 14[th] day of March, 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.146/2024 of the Kolathur Police Station, Malappuram, registered against the accused (three in number) for allegedly committing the offences under Sections 22(b) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short, ‘NDPS Act’). The petitioner was arrested on 01.02.2024. 2. The crux of the prosecution case is that; on 01.02.2024, at around 14.45 hours, the first accused was found in possession of 2.98 grams, the second accused was found in possession of 0.23 gram and the third accused was found in possession of 0.05 gram of MDMA, i.e., a total of 3.26 grams of MDMA. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences. ## B.A.No.1791 of 2024 ## -:3:- 3. Heard Sri. Sidharth.O, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. Shynimol. V.O, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusations levelled against him. He has been falsely implicated in the crime. The petitioner has been in judicial custody since 01.02.2024. The investigation in the case is practically complete, and has been Even the recovery effected. assuming allegations in the First Information Report are correct, the contraband is of an intermediate quantity. The petitioner has no criminal antecedents. The petitioner is willing to abide by any stringent condition that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, the application may be allowed. ## B.A.No.1791 of 2024 ## -:4:- 5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. Nonetheless, she conceded to the fact that the contraband that was allegedly seized from the petitioner is of an intermediate quantity. The petitioner has no criminal antecedents. The investigation in the case is in progress. 6. On an anxious consideration of the facts, the materials placed on record, the rival submissions made across the Bar, especially taking note of the fact that the contraband article that was allegedly seized from the petitioner is of an intermediate quantity, that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 01.02.2024, 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. ## B.A.No.1791 of 2024 -:5:- 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 Police Officer or tamper with the evidence in any manner, whatsoever; (iii) The petitioner shall not commit any offence ## B.A.No.1791 of 2024 ## -:6:- 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 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 B.A.No.1791 of 2024 -:7:- 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/14.03.24 ## B.A.No.1791 of 2024 ## -:8:- ## **`APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 1791/2024`** |**`PETITIONER ANNEXURES`**|**`PETITIONER ANNEXURES`**| |---|---| |**`ANNEXURE A1`**|**`TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME`**| ||**`NO. 146/2024 ON THE FILES OF KOLATHUR`**| ||**`POLICE STATION.`**| |**`ANNEXURE A2`**|**`TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE REMAND`**| ||**`REPORT DATED 02.02.2024 FILED BY THE`**| ||**`2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE JUDICIAL`**| ||**`FIRST`**<br>**`CLASS`**<br>**`MAGISTRATE`**<br>**`COURT-1,`**| ||**`PERINTHALMANNA.`**| |**`ANNEXURE A3`**|**`TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER`**| ||**`IN CMP 139/2024 AND CMP 129/2024 DATED`**| ||**`23.02.2024 ON THE FILES OF THE SPECIAL`**| ||**`COURT FOR TRIAL OF OFFENCES UNDER NDPS`**| ||**`ACT CASES, MANJERI.`**|