IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 27TH AUGUST 2009 / 5TH BHADRA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 3713 of 2009 O.R.NO.3 OF 2005 OF NARCOTIC CONTROL BUREAU, REGIONAL INTELLIGENCE UNIT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, SESSIONS CASE NO.736 OF 2009 ON THE FILE OF THE SESSIONS PETITIONER/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- F.FAISAL, HOUSE NO.XIV/32, HAZEEB, CHERUVANNOOR, KOLATHARA, CALICUT-673 655. BY ADV. SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN SRI.SAIJO HASSAN RESPONDENTS: STATE & COMPLAINANT ---------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, NARCOTIC CONTROL BUREAU, REGIONAL INTELLIGENCE UNIT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.TEKCHAND R2 BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.C.P.UDAYABHANU THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/07/2009, THE COURT ON 27/08/2009 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ B.A. NO. 3713 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 27th August, 2009 O R D E R The petitioner was the second accused in Sessions Case No.1041 of 2005 on the file of the Court of the Special Judge for trial of cases under the NDPS Act, Thiruvananthapuram. There were three accused persons in the case. The complaint was filed by the Narcotic Control Bureau, Regional Intelligence Unit, Thiruvananthapuram alleging commission of offence under Sections 22(b) and 29 read with Section 22(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. 2. During the investigation stage of the case, the petitioner (second accused) absconded. Even after the complaint was filed before Court, the presence of the petitioner could not be secured, in spite of taking coercive steps. The case against the petitioner was split up. Accused Nos.1 and 3 stood trial. The first accused was convicted and he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- under Section 22(b) B.A. NO.3713 OF 2009 :: 2 :: and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- under Section 29 read with Section 22(b) of the NDPS Act. Accused No.3 was found not guilty and he was acquitted. 3. The split up case against the petitioner has been re- numbered as Sessions Case No.736 of 2009. The petitioner was arrested on 12.6.2009 from Bangalore Airport. He was remanded to judicial custody. The petitioner moved an application for bail before the Court of the Sessions Judge, which was dismissed by the order dated 26th June, 2009. 4. The present Bail Application is filed by the petitioner under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 5. The gist of the prosecution case is the following: On 29.2.2004, the Air Intelligence Unit, Mumbai Customs seized 20670 ampules of Bunojesic injections from two Iranian nationals. Investigation revealed that for the period from June 2003 to November 2003, M/s.Rusan Health Care Private Limited, Mumbai, the manufacturer of the said Bunojesic injections supplied 106000 B.A. NO.3713 OF 2009 :: 3 :: ampules to their consignee agent M/s.Standard Pharmaceuticals, Kochi. From the said consignment, 20000 ampules were delivered to Popular Drugs and Surgicals, Perintalmanna, who are the stockists of M/s.Rusan Health Care Limited. The said consignment was taken delivery at Calicut. But Popular Drugs and Surgicals had no office at Calicut. Investigation revealed that the petitioner placed orders for delivery of the consignment and that Popular Drugs and Surgicals did not place orders or take delivery. On the other hand, it was taken delivery of by the petitioner. 20000 ampules were thus unauthorisedly diverted by the accused persons. Investigation revealed that M/s.Popular Drugs and Surgicals never placed any such order for purchase of the drugs. 6. The petitioner was all along absconding. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that if the petitioner is released on bail, he would make himself scarce and the Court would not be able to complete the trial of the case against the petitioner. Te crime was registered in the year 2005. The trial court found the first accused guilty as per the judgment dated 16th November 2006. I find force in the submission made by the learned Public Prosecutor. If the petitioner is released on bail, there is every likelihood of the B.A. NO.3713 OF 2009 :: 4 :: petitioner absconding again. In a case of this nature, I do not think it proper and just to release the petitioner on bail. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. However, the trial court will make every endeavour to dispose of the case against the petitioner expeditiously. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/