IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 29TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 8TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 9595 of 2011 SC.484/2011 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT (ADHOC-II), ERNAKULAM CRIME NO.2135 OF 2011 OF ALUVA POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT PETITIONER : ACUSED NO.2: ------------------------------ LIJO JOY, AGED 32 YEARS,S/O.JOY, MOOJELY HOUSE, CHUNANGAMVELI, ALUVA BY ADV. SRI.V.N.SUNIL KUMAR RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT: --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.R.REMA THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ Bail Appl. NO. 9595 OF 2011 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 29th day of November, 2011 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.2 in Crime No.2135 of 2011 of Aluva Police Station, Ernakulam District, which is now pending as S.C.No.484 of 2011, on the file of the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge (Ad-hoc II), Ernakulam. 2. The offences alleged against the accused are under Sections 22(b) and 8(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. 3. The prosecution case is that on 4.8.2011 at 8 P.M., the petitioner was found transporting 750 ampules of Lupegesic, 11 ampules of Sterlium and 95 ampules of Phenargam in an autorickshaw. The petitioner was arrested on 4.8.2011 and he was remanded to judicial custody. After completing the investigation, final report was filed and the case was taken on file as S.C.No.484 of BAIL APPL. NO.9595 OF 2011 :: 2 :: 2011, on the file of the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge (Ad- hoc II), Ernakulam. 4. The quantity of psychotropic substance involved in the case is commercial quantity. The Bail Application is seriously opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor. Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act provides that where the Public Prosecutor opposes bail, the Court shall not grant bail to the accused unless the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. In the present case, there is no ground for believing that the petitioner is not guilty of the offence. It is also not shown by any acceptable material that the petitioner is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/