IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA FRIDAY, THE 30TH MAY 2008 / 9TH JYAISHTA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 3460 of 2008() CRIME NO. 1/2008 OF KOLLAM EXCISE ENFORCEMENT AND ANTI NARCOTICS SPECIAL SQUAD PETITIONERS: ACCUSED NO.1 & 2 --------------------------------- 1. SUNNY @ AYYAN KUNJU, AGED 40 S/O.THANKACHAN, CHELEKUZHIDESHATHU VADAKKATHIL PATTAZHI, VADAKKEKKARA VILLAGE PATHANAPURAM TALUK, KOLLAM 2. NAJEEB @ ABBAS, S/O.MAJEED NAJEEB MANZIL, KADUVATHODU MURI VADAKKEKKARA VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK, KOLLAM BY ADV. SRI.S.GIRISH RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF EXCISE ENFORCEMENT AND ANTI NARCOTICS SPECIAL SQUAD THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A.No. 3460 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 30th day of May, 2008 O R D E R Application for bail. 2. According to the prosecution, a total quantity of 48.7 k.gms. of ganja was recovered from the possession of petitioners 1 and 2. The 1st petitioner was carrying 30.5 k.gms., which is above the commercial quantity and the 2nd petitioner was carrying 19.5 k.gms., which is less than the commercial quantity but more than the small quantity. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the 2nd petitioner is entitled for bail, since he is in custody for the past more than 60 days and he is entitled for bail by virtue of proviso to section 167 Cr.P.C. The learned Public Prosecutor conceded that the statutory period of detention is over, as far as the 2nd petitioner is concerned and hence he has no objection in granting bail to him. 3. As far as the 1st petitioner is concerned, he was in possession of more than the commercial quantity and hence the application is strongly opposed. On hearing both sides, I do not find it is fit to grant bail to the 1st petitioner at this stage, since his detention, according to the learned Public Prosecutor, is required for a smooth and effective investigation. BA 3460/2008 -2- 4. In the result, the following orders are passed:- 1) Application for bail by the 1st petitioner is rejected. 2) The second petitioner is granted bail on the following terms and conditions:- 1. The 2nd petitioner shall execute a bond for Rs.50,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the lower court. 2. The 2nd petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer on alternate days between 10 a.m. and 1 p.m. until further orders. 3. The 2nd petitioner shall not leave the limits of Kollam Police Station without previous permission of the Magistrate Court. 4. If the 2nd petitioner gets involved in offence of similar nature, bail is liable to cancelled. This application is partly allowed. K. HEMA, JUDGE. mn.