High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2024-03-07Granted bail

Sirajudheen v. State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:Bail Application No. 1576 of 2024

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C.S. Dias
Judgment Date: 2024-03-07
Court Decision / Holding: The bail application is allowed; the petitioner is to be released on bail on a bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties of equal amount, subject to conditions including appearance before the Investigating Officer on Saturdays for one month or until final report, avoidance of inducement or tampering, non-commission of offences while on bail, surrender of passport if any, provision of present and permanent addresses and mobile number, and reporting requirements; if there is violation, bail cancellation proceedings may be initiated. Investigations and recoveries may proceed during bail as laid down by the Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal.
Final Disposition: Granted bail

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Sirajudheen

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• K.R. Vinod
• M.S. Letha
• Rahul S.
• Devika S.

Counsels for Respondents

• Smt Neema T.V.

Case Synopsis & Summary

Sirajudheen, the second accused in Crime No. 10/2024 of the Excise Enforcement and Anti Narcotics Special Squad, Ernakulam, seeks bail under Section 439 CrPC for alleged offences under Sections 27(a), 22(b) and 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985. Arrested on 8 February 2024, he is alleged to have possessed 6.475 grams of MDMA found at a Cheranelloor residence. The High Court of Kerala weighs whether continued detention is warranted, considering the gravity of the offences, the quantity involved, the stage of investigation, and the accused’s antecedents. The prosecution contends the offences are serious; the contraband quantity is not gross, but the accused’s detention may be necessary for a fair investigation. The defense asserts innocence, claims false implication, and notes the contraband quantity is intermediate, with no criminal antecedents, and that investigation is practically complete and recovery effected. The Public Prosecutor concedes intermediate quantity, lack of antecedents, near completion of investigation, and recovery. After evaluating these factors, the court finds no compelling reason to keep the accused in custody and grants bail. The order imposes a bond of Rs 50,000 with two sureties, and conditions including periodic appearance, no tampering, surrender of passport if any, and reporting. It also acknowledges that investigations may proceed during bail, following Sushila Aggarwal, and is dated 7 March 2024.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Sections 27(a), 22(b) and 29 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends innocence and false implication. He argues that the contraband recovered is of an intermediate quantity and the investigation is nearly complete with recovery effected, and that he has no criminal antecedents. He has been in judicial custody since 8 February 2024 and seeks release on bail to preserve his right to a fair trial, asserting that continued detention is unnecessary and that the case requires a measured approach to pre-trial confinement. The defense stresses the lack of motive and the absence of any evidence suggesting his involvement beyond the recovered substance, urging the court to rely on the presumption of innocence and the safeguards of the bail system.

Contentions of Respondents

The Public Prosecutor submits that while the contraband quantity is intermediate and there are no prior antecedents, releasing the accused could risk repetition of similar offences and undermine investigation. She concedes the investigation is practically complete and the recovery has been effected, but seeks to impose stringent conditions to ensure appearance, compliance, and safety. The prosecution emphasizes the need to balance liberty with public interest and to avoid disrupting ongoing control measures.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another	2020 (1) KHC 663	Positive	Cited as authority for allowing investigations and recoveries to proceed while bail is in force.

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 Sirajudheen 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.

1 Bail Application No. 1576 of 2024 ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS ``` ``` THURSDAY, THE 7[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 17TH PHALGUNA, 1945 BAIL APPL. NO. 1576 OF 2024 ``` ``` CRIME NO.10/2024 OF Excise Enforcement and Anti Narcotic Special Squad, Ernakulam ``` ``` PETITIONER/S: ``` ``` SIRAJUDHEEN AGED 34 YEARS S/O. SALIM, MATTATHIL HOUSE, VALLUVALLI DESOM, KOTTUVALLY (C.T.) VILLAGE, PARAVOOR TALUK, ERNAKULAM., PIN - 683518 ``` ``` BY ADVS. K.R.VINOD M.S.LETHA RAHUL.S DEVIKA S. ``` ``` RESPONDENT/S: ``` ``` STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 ``` ``` OTHER PRESENT: ``` ``` Sr PP Smt Neema T.V ``` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` 2 Bail Application No. 1576 of 2024 ## **C.S.DIAS,J** **======================** **Bail Application No. 1576 of 2024** **----------------------------------Dated this the 7[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 second accused in crime No.10/2024 of the Excise Enforcement and Anti Narcotics Special Squad, Ernakulam, registered against the accused , for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Secs. 27(a), 22(b) and 29 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The petitioner was arrested on 8.2.2024. 2. The gist of the prosecution case is that: on 8.2.2024 at around 23.45 hours the accused were found in possession 3 Bail Application No. 1576 of 2024 of 6.475 grams of MDMA in a house at Cheranelloor. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences. 3. Heard; Sri.K.R Vinod, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt.Neema T.V, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent. 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. In any given case, the alleged contraband that was seized from the petitioner is of an intermediate quantity, the petitioner has no criminal antecedents, the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 8.2.2024, the investigation in the case is practically complete and 4 Bail Application No. 1576 of 2024 recovery has been effected. Hence, the petitioner may be released on bail. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. She contended that if the petitioner is released on bail, there is every likelihood of him committing a similar offence. Nonetheless, she conceded to the fact that the contraband seized from the petitioner is of an intermediate quantity, that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents, that the investigation in the case is practically complete and that the recovery has been effected. 6. On a consideration of the facts, the materials placed on record, the rival submissions made across the Bar, especially taking into account the fact that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents, that the contraband 5 Bail Application No. 1576 of 2024 that was allegedly seized from the petitioner is of an intermediate quantity, 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 continued detention is unnecessary. Hence, I am inclined to allow the bail application. In the result, the application is allowed, by directing the petitioner to be released on bail on him executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (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 for a 6 Bail Application No. 1576 of 2024 period of one month or till the final report is laid, 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; (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; 7 Bail Application No. 1576 of 2024 (v) The petitioner shall furnish his present address and permanent address, and his mobile phone number to the court below and the Investigating Officer; (vi) 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. (vii) Applications for deletion/modification of the bail conditions shall be moved and entertained by the court below. (viii) 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 8 Bail Application No. 1576 of 2024 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/- sks/7.3.2024 **C.S.DIAS, JUDGE**