IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 22ND FEBRUARY 2010 / 3RD PHALGUNA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 975 of 2010() --------------------------------------- CRIME NO.9/2009 OF EXCISE ENFORCEMENT AND ANTI-NARCOTICS SPECIAL SQUAD, KOTTAYAM. .................... PETITIONER/IST ACCUSED --------------------------------------- V. SURENDRAN, S/O.VASU, AGED 38 YEARS, CHOKRAMUDIKUDY HOUSE, CHOKRAMUDIKUDY KARA, POTTANKADU VILLAGE, BAISON VALLY, DEVIKULAM TALUK. BY ADV. MR.S.JIJI RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF EXCISE, EXCISE ENFORCEMENT AND ANTI-NARCOTIC SPECIAL SQUAD KOTTAYAM, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.V. TEKCHAND. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/02/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. K.T. SANKARAN, J. ------------------------ B.A. No. 975 of 2010 ----------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of February, 2010 O R D E R This is an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is accused No.1 in Crime No.9/2009 of Excise Enforcement and Anti-Narcotic Special Squad, Kottayam. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 20(b)(ii)(c), 27-A and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. 3. The prosecution case is the following: On 09.09.2009 at 3.45 A.M., the Circle Inspector, Excise Enforcement and Anti-Narcotic Special Squad was engaged in patrol duty. They found a jeep parked on the side of the road. Two persons were unloading sacs. On seeing the excise party, the persons who were in the jeep started the jeep and drove away. Accused Nos.1 and 2, who were engaged in the unloading, were arrested. Though the jeep in which the other accused drove away was followed by the excise party, they could B.A. No. 975 of 2010 2 not intercept the jeep. A quantity of 91.5 kgs of ganja was found in the sacs unloaded from the jeep. The petitioner and the second accused were remanded to judicial custody. The prosecution alleges that the persons who escaped in the jeep are accused Nos. 3 and 4. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the ingredients of Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the N.D.P.S. Act are satisfied in the case and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the grant of bail. The counsel submitted that there is no material to connect the petitioner with the offence and there are reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner is not guilty of the offence. The petitioner is not likely to commit any offence while on bail, submits the counsel. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor very vehementally opposed the Bail Application. He submitted that between 01.07.2009 and 08.09.2009, there were 133 calls from the mobile phones of accused Nos. 1 to 4 among themselves. It is submitted that on 08.09.2009 itself there were 11 calls as between the first accused and the third accused. The learned Public Prosecutor also submitted that the second and third B.A. No. 975 of 2010 3 accused are involved in another case under the N.D.P.S. Act and that case is pending trial before the Sessions Court, Thodupuzha as Sessions Case 16/2009. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that though the investigating officer attempted to arrest accused No.3 from the premises of the Sessions Court, Thodupuzha, he escaped on a motor bike. Hectic steps are being taken to arrest accused Nos.3 and 4. If the petitioner is released on bail, the investigating officer may find it difficult to secure the arrest of accused Nos. 3 and 4. 6. On going through the Case Diary, I am not inclined to accept the contention put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no material to connect the petitioner with the offence. The quantity of ganja involved in the case is 91.5 kgs, which constitutes commercial quantity. Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the N.D.P.S. Act provides that where the offence involves commercial quantity of the contraband, the accused shall be released on bail only if the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. It cannot be said that there are reasonable B.A. No. 975 of 2010 4 grounds for believing that the petitioner is not guilty of the offence. The records would indicate that on earlier occasions also, the petitioner had involved himself in dealing with ganja. It cannot also be said that the petitioner is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. 7. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offence and the allegations levelled against the petitioner, I do not think that this is a fit case where bail can be granted to the petitioner. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail application is dismissed. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE ln