IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 31ST JULY 2008 / 9TH SRAVANA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 4668 of 2008() ----------------------------- O.R.No.1/2008 OF DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE, CALICUT. PETITIONER/3RD ACCUSED:- ----------------------------------------- GURUDARSHAN SINGH RATTAN, S/O BACHAN SINGH, JAIN TOWER, C-2,2ND FLOOR, BALAMANDIR ROAD, RAJASTHAN. BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. SENIOR INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE, KOZHIKODE. 2. STATE REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY S.C. SRI.C.P.UDAYABHANU. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A.No. 4668 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 31st day of July, 2008 O R D E R Application for bail. 2. The alleged offences are under sections 21, 23 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. According to the prosecution, officers of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence conducted a search in the house of the 1st accused, which resulted in recovery of 5 kgms. of heroine kept in the bed room. They also conducted search in the house of his relative at Malappurm and seized 6 kgms. of brown sugar from that house. On questioning the 1st accused, it is revealed that he had handed over 6 kgms. of brown sugar to his relative from whom the article is seized. It is also alleged that the 1st accused procured the article from accused 2 and 3. The 2nd accused belongs to Rajastan and he brought the article from Rajastan. He was also accompanied by the 3rd accused and both of them had brought the article to Calicut and handed over to the 1st accused. Petitioner is the 3rd accused. On getting information that the petitioner and the 2nd accused are staying in a hotel, a search was conducted in the room and both of them were arrested. The petitioner was taken into custody on 25-3-2008 BA 4668/08 -2- and he was arrested on 26-3-2008. He is in judicial custody since then. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the only source of information regarding the involvement of the petitioner is from the statement given by accused No.1. According to him, though as per prosecution case, the total quantity of the contraband article 11 kgms., on analysis it is reported to contain only less quantity and on calculation, the entire contraband article seized will only be 300 gms. approximately. Hence, going by a decision reported in Micheal Raj V. Intelligence Officer (2008(2) KLT 36 (SC)) the actual quantity of heroin alone can be taken into account. The only material available to connect the petitioner to the crime is alleged statement given by the 1st accused and it is also pointed out that in spite of search conducted by surprise in the room where the petitioner was staying in the hotel, no contraband article was seized. There is also nothing in evidence to show that while travelling with the 2nd accused the petitioner was aware of the fact that contraband article was being transported. For these reasons the petitioner may be released on bail especially since he is in custody for the past 124 days and the charge sheet has not been filed so far. 4. This application is strongly opposed. Learned Standing Counsel submitted that huge quantity of heroine worth crores of rupees is involved in this case. Even going by the analysis report, the article involved comes BA 4668/08 -3- to more than commercial quantity. Therefore, going by section 37 of the the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, bail cannot be granted to the petitioner, unless he establishes his innocence. It is also submitted that the petitioner is implicated not merely on the basis of a statement given by the 1st accused. The fact that accused 2 and 3 travelled together from Rajastan to Calicut and that railway tickets which are seized would reveal that the petitioner was travelling with the 2nd accused are incriminating circumstances against the petitioner. He was also found staying with the 2nd accused in the same hotel. The petitioner has no explanation for his close association with the 2nd accused who brought article from Rajastan. As per the statement of the 2nd accused given to the respondent officials he has stated the person who got the article. Steps are also taken to include that person in the array of accused. Such person could not be arrested so far and in such circumstances, if the petitioner is released on bail, at this stage, it will adversely affect the investigation. 5. On hearing both sides, considering the serious nature of the offence and the nature of involvement of the petitioner in the offence and the circumstances under which he was arrested, the stage of investigation etc., I am satisfied that it may not be proper to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage. BA 4668/08 -4- The application is dismissed. K. HEMA, JUDGE. mn.