IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 21ST DECEMBER 2009 / 30TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 7448 of 2009() ------------------------------------------ (CRIME NO.824/2009 OF PALA POLICE STATION,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT) PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 & 2: --------------------------------------------- 1. SHAJI, S/O.KUNJAPPAN, KOCHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, KANJIRAPPALLY. 2. RANJU, S/O.KUNJUMON, LAHAYIL PUTHENPARAMBIL, KANJIRAPPILLY. BY ADV. MR.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. M.S. BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 7448 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 21st day of December, 2009 O R D E R This is the second application for bail filed by the petitioners under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Earlier, the petitioners had filed B.A. No.6888/2009, which was dismissed by the order dated 2/12/2009. For the sake of convenience, the order dated 2/12/2009 is extracted below: “This is an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No. 824/2009 of Pala Police Station, Kottayam. 2. The offence alleged against the petitioners is under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. 3. The prosecution case is that on 28/10/2009, the accused persons were found transporting 5.3 Kgs of ganja in a car. On search of the accused, another quantity of 45gms of ganja B.A. No. 7448 /2009 2 was found in possession of the first accused. The petitioners were arrested on 28/10/2009 and they were remanded to judicial custody. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the first accused is involved in Crime No.215/2009 of Kanjirappilly Police Station, wherein the offence alleged is under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. 5. The quantity of ganja involved in the present case is not a commercial quantity. Therefore, the bar under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the Act will not apply. That does not mean that whenever the contraband involved is not that of commercial quantity, the accused is liable to be released on bail. In the present case, quantity of ganja involved is 5.3Kgs. The first accused is involved in a similar case. I do not think that it is proper to release the petitioners on bail at this stage. If the petitioners are released on bail, there is every likelihood of the B.A. No. 7448 /2009 3 petitioners involving themselves in similar prejudicial activities. It is also likely that the accused may tamper with the evidence and try to influence or intimidate the witnesses. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed.” 2. In so far as the first petitioner/ first accused is concerned, I do not think that he is entitled to get bail at this stage. However, the position of the second petitioner/second accused is different. He is not involved in any other offence of similar nature. He is in jail from 28/10/2009 onwards. 3. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the duration of the judicial custody undergone by the petitioners, the nature of the offence and the present stage of investigation, I am of the view that bail can be granted to the second petitioner on stringent conditions. 4. The second petitioner shall be released on bail on his executing bond for Rs.50,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the Special Court for NDPS B.A. No. 7448 /2009 4 Cases, Thodupuzha subject to the following conditions:- A) The 2nd petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer between 9 A.M. and 11 A.M. on all Mondays and Thursdays, till the final report is filed or until further orders. B) The 2nd petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when required. C) The 2nd petitioner shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence. D) The 2nd petitioner shall not commit any offence or indulge in any prejudicial activity while on bail. E) In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, the bail shall be liable to be cancelled. Accordingly, the Bail Application is dismissed in so far as it relates to the 1st Petitioner (Accused No.1) and it is allowed, in the manner indicated above, in so far as it relates to the 2nd Petitioner (Accused No. 2). K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE scm