IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN SATURDAY, THE 3RD DECEMBER 2011 / 12TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 9850 of 2011() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.1/2010 OF PARAPPANANGADI EXCISE RANGE .................... PETITIONER (S): ACCUSED ------------------------------- ALAVI, S/O.MOHAMMED, CHAKKIYATH HOUSE THANALOOR AMSOM, PAKARA DESOM, TIRUR TALUK MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.SAMSUDIN RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE EXCISE RANGE OFFICER PARAPPANANGADI THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 682 031. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.R.RENJITH THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A.No.9850 of 2011 --------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of December, 2011 O R D E R This is an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.1 of 2010 of Parappanangadi Excise Range, Malappuram District. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. 3. The prosecution case is that on 9.2.2010, the petitioner was found in possession of 5.5 kgs. of ganja. He was arrested on 9.2.2010. The Special Court for NDPS Cases, Vadakara, granted bail to the petitioner as per the order dated 12.4.2010. One of the conditions for granting bail was that the petitioner should appear before the investigating officer on all Mondays and Thursdays till the charge sheet was filed. Another BA 9850/11 2 condition was that the petitioner should not commit any offence of similar nature while on bail. The investigating officer filed an application for cancellation of bail on the ground that the petitioner, while on bail in the present case, was involved in Crime No.334 of 2010 of Thanoor Police Station and Crime No.431 of 2011 of Kottakkal Police Station for the offences under the NDPS Act. In Crime No.334 of 2010, the petitioner was found in possession of 400 gms. of ganja while in Crime No.431 of 2011, the petitioner was found in possession of 5 kgms. of ganja. In view of the involvement of the petitioner in similar offences, bail granted to the petitioner was cancelled and the petitioner was remanded to judicial custody. The application for bail submitted by the petitioner was dismissed by the learned Special Judge. 4. It is clear that the petitioner violated conditions imposed in the order granting bail. The petitioner was found involved in the offences under the NDPS Act while on bail in the present case. The learned Special Judge for NDPS Cases rightly cancelled the bail. In view of the involvement of the petitioner in similar offences, I am of the view that the petitioner is not entitled BA 9850/11 3 to get bail. The Bail Application submitted by the petitioner was rightly dismissed by the learned Special Judge. I do not find any ground to grant bail to the petitioner. If bail is granted to the petitioner, it is most likely that he would involve in similar offences to the detriment of the general public. The very purpose of the NDPS Act would be defeated, if bail is granted to the petitioner. The personal liberty of the accused should not go against the personal liberty and health of the general public. When pitted against the welfare of the general public, the personal liberty of the accused is insignificant. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN JUDGE csl