IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH AUGUST 2009 / 4TH BHADRA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 4826 of 2009() ------------------------------------------- (O.R.NO.2/2009 OF THE NARCOTIC CONTROL BUREAU, REGIONAL INTELLIGENCE UNIT, TRIVANDRUM) ... PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2: -------------------------------------------- K.K.ASHRAF, S/O.MUHAMMED K.K., MEAPALATHIL HOUSE, MELANGADI, KONDOTTY, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.BABU S. NAIR RESPONDENT(S): STATE: --------------------------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, NARCOTIC CONTROL BUREAU, REGIONAL INTELLIGENCE UNIT, TRIVANDRUM-THROUGH THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR-N.C.B., HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-31. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.C.P.UDAYABHANU THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 4826 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 26th day of August, 2009 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is the 2nd accused in O.R.No.2 of 2009 of Narcotic Control Bureau, Regional Intelligence Unit, Thiruvananthapuram. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 8(c), 21(c), 27 and 28 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. 3. The prosecution case is that on 18-7-2009 the 1st accused Shanavas was arrested on getting secret information that he was transporting 500 grams of heroin, which was supplied by the 2nd accused. It is alleged that the heroin was to be supplied to one Sarju, who is the 3rd accused, for being exported to Maldives. The 1st accused gave a statement, in which he stated that the contraband was purchased by him from the 2nd accused. On 28-7-2009, the 2nd accused was arrested. It is BA 4826/09 2 submitted by the Public Prosecutor that the petitioner (2nd accused) gave a statement similar to the statement given by the 1st accused. It is also submitted that the statement of the petitioner was scribed by another person. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not put his signature in the statement and it is specifically recorded therein that the petitioner has stated that he was not signing the statement and that he was putting the signature only on the document taken from him. 5. The offences involved are serious in nature. The application is seriously opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor. Bail application filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge by order dated 12-8-2009. It is submitted that the investigation of the case is in progress and it is suspected that other persons are also involved in the offence. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that if the petitioner is released on bail at this stage, it would seriously affect the progress of the investigation. It is also submitted that it is likely that the petitioner may abscond and indulge in prejudicial activities and intimidate the prosecution witnesses. BA 4826/09 3 6. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case and the allegations levelled against the petitioner, I am not inclined to allow the Bail Application. The Bail Application is accordingly dismissed. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE mn