High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeBail Granted; petitioner released on bail with ...

Shyam Kumar v. State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:BA No. 914 of 2024

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • C. S. Dias
Judgment Date
2024-02-28
Court Decision / Holding
Bail application allowed; the petitioner Shyam Kumar is to be released on bail on a bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with two solvent sureties of like amount, subject to conditions: (i) appearance before IO every Saturday 9-11 am until proceedings conclude; (ii) no inducement or tampering with witnesses; (iii) no commission of offence while on bail; (iv) surrender of passport, if any; (v) power to cancel bail for violation; (vi) modify/delete bail conditions upon court; (vii) IO may investigate and recover during pendency as per Sushila Aggarwal principle; final order quotes and follows the cited authority.
Final Disposition
Bail Granted; petitioner released on bail with stringent conditions.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Shyam Kumar

Respondents

  • State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala
  • Smt Seetha S (Senior Public Prosecutor)

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • M. Kiranlal
  • • R. Rajesh (Varkala)
  • • Manu Ramachandran
  • • T.S. Sarath
  • • Sameer M Nair
  • • Jothisha K.A.
  • • Sailakshmi Menon
  • • Smt. Akhila B.
  • • Aashi K. Shajan

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Smt Seetha S
  • • Public Prosecutor, State of Kerala

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Kerala High Court bail application under Section 439 CrPC by Shyam Kumar, the first accused in Crime No. 1583/2023 registered at Sakthikulangara Police Station, Kollam, against the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The petition seeks release on bail while the investigation is nearing completion. The prosecution alleges involvement in transporting 2.025 kg of ganja in a car on 27 December 2023, with the contraband purchased from the third accused for sale. The petitioner contends innocence and false implication; he cites annexures including the FIR (Annexure A1), remand report (Annexure A2) and a medical certificate (Annexure A3) indicating his wife’s locomotor disability; An earlier bail application before the Court of Session was dismissed (Annexure A4). The Public Prosecutor counters with the petitioner’s alleged criminal antecedents and links to two other similar cases; argues that, despite investigation being complete, there is a likelihood of re-offending. The Court notes the contraband is an “intermediate quantity” and that the investigation is practically complete, thus concluding that further detention is not necessary. Under Section 37 NDPS, the rigour does not apply here, and bail is granted subject to stringent conditions: appearance before the IO on Saturdays, prohibition on tampering with witnesses, surrender of passport, and possible cancellation of bail for violations, as supported by a cited Supreme Court principle from Sushila Aggarwal.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC)Sections 20(b)(ii)(B) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Rigour under Section 37 NDPS Act will not apply
  • Sushila Aggarwal v. State of Delhi and another (2020) 1 KHC 663 (cited doctrine on bail conditions and cancellation/modification)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends total innocence and false implication; reliance on Annexures A1 and A2 showing FIR/remand records; Annexure A3 demonstrates wife’s locomotor disability; contends investigation is nearly complete and custody since 27.12.2023 is unnecessary; asserts there is no direct involvement in the alleged offences and seeks bail with stringent conditions to ensure non-reoffending.

Contentions of Respondents

Prosecution opposes bail citing criminal antecedents and involvement in two other similar cases; argues the likelihood of reoffending and ongoing investigation concludes but bail should be denied to prevent further offences; maintains that considerations under NDPS cannot be ignored.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Sushila Aggarwal v. State of Delhi and another2020 (1) KHC 663PositiveCited as authority for the bail conditions and the court's power to cancel or modify bail during pendency.

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 Shyam Kumar 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 28[TH] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 9TH PHALGUNA, 1945 BAIL APPL. NO. 914 OF 2024 ``` ``` CRIME NO.1583/2023 OF SAKTHIKULANGARA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM AGAINST THE ORDER IN CRMC 103/2024 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT,KOLLAM ``` ## **`PETITIONER/ACCUSED 1:`** ``` SHYAM KUMAR, AGED 35 YEARS S/O SHASHANKAN, KALLUVILA VEEDU, MUTHALAKKULAM, NEDUNGOLAM P.O., PARAVUR, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691334 ``` ``` BY ADVS. M.KIRANLAL R.RAJESH (VARKALA) MANU RAMACHANDRAN T.S.SARATH SAMEER M NAIR JOTHISHA K.A. SAILAKSHMI MENON SMT.AKHILA B. AASHI K. SHAJAN ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/STATE:`** ``` STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 ``` ``` SR PP SMT SEETHA S ``` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` B.A. No.914 of 2024 2 ## **Dated this the 28[th] day of February, 2024 ORDER** The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the first accused in Crime No.1583/2023 of the Sakthikulangara Police Station, Kollam, registered against the accused (three in number) for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(B) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short, ‘the Act’). The petitioner was arrested on 27.12.2023. 2. The prosecution case is that: on 27.12.2023, at about 21.30 hours, the accused 1 and 2 were found transporting 2.025 kg of Ganja in a car that was driven in a rash and negligent manner, which was purchased from the third accused for the purpose of sale. The accused were apprehended with the contraband articles from the B.A. No.914 of 2024 3 spot. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences. 3. Heard; Sri. Kiran Lal. M, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. Seetha.S. the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusation levelled against him. He has been falsely implicated in the crime. A reading of Annexure A1 FIR and A2 remand report would substantiate that the petitioner has not committed the offences alleged against him. Moreover, as per Annexure A3 medical certificate, the petitioner’s wife is suffering from a locomotor disability. Even though the petitioner had moved an application for bail before the Court of Session, the same was dismissed by Annexure A4 order. The contraband that was allegedly seized from the accused is of an intermediate quantity. The petitioner has been in custody since 27.12.2023. The investigation in the B.A. No.914 of 2024 4 case is complete, and the recovery has been effected. The petitioner’s further detention is not necessary. Hence, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. She contended that the petitioner has criminal antecedents. He is involved in two other crimes of similar nature for having been found in possession of an intermediate quantity of the same contraband article. Even though the investigation in the case is complete, the same cannot be a ground to release the petitioner on bail because there is every likelihood of the petitioner committing similar offences. Hence, the application may be dismissed. 6. Indisputably, the petitioner was arrested on 27.12.2023. The investigation in the case is practically complete, and the recovery has been effected. Even going by the antecedents alleged against the petitioner, the same are crimes registered against the petitioner for B.A. No.914 of 2024 5 allegedly being in possession of an intermediate quantity of the contraband articles. The contraband involved in the present case is also of an intermediate quantity. Therefore, the rigour under Section 37 of the Act will not apply. 7. On an anxious consideration of the facts, the rival submissions made across the Bar, the material placed on record, and particularly taking note of the fact that the contraband that was allegedly seized from the petitioner is of an intermediate quantity and that the investigation in the case is practically complete, I am of the definite view that the petitioner’s further detention is not necessary. Hence, I am inclined to allow the bail application, but subject to the stringent condition, especially that the petitioner shall not get involved in any offence during the pendency of the above proceedings. In the result, the application is allowed, by directing the petitioner to be released on bail on him executing a B.A. No.914 of 2024 6 bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand 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 till the conclusion of the proceedings in the above crime. 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 her 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.914 of 2024 7 (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 is on bail as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme 8 B.A. No.914 of 2024 Court in **Sushila Aggarwal v. State of Delhi and another [2020 (1) KHC 663]** . **Sd/-** **C.S.DIAS, JUDGE** mtk/28.02.24 B.A. No.914 of 2024 9 ## **`APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 914/2024`** ``` PETITIONER ANNEXURES ``` ``` ANNEXURE A1A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 1583/2023 OF SAKTHIKUALNGARA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT ``` ``` ANNEXURE A2A TRUE COPY OF THE REMAND APPLICATION OF THE PETITIONER IN CRIME NO. 1583/2023 OF SAKTHIKUALNGARA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT DATED 27.12.2023 ``` ``` ANNEXURE A3A TRUE COPY OF THE TREATMENT DETAILS OF THE PETITIONER'S WIFE ANNEXURE A4A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23.01.2024 IN CRL.M.C NO.103/2024 OF SESSIONS JUDGE, KOLLAM ```