IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 2ND FEBRUARY 2010 / 13TH MAGHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 374 of 2010() -------------------------------------- CRMP.200/2009 of SPL. COURT (NDPS ACT CASES), THODUPUZHA O.R. NO.12 OF 2009 OF NARCOTIC ENFORCEMENT SQUAD, ADIMALY, IDUKKI. .................... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED: --------------------------------------- 1. VINOD T.R. @ KUNJU, S/O. RAMAN, AGED 38 YEARS, RESIDING AT THEVAROLIYIL HOUSE, THINGALKADU KARA, KONNATHADI VILLAGE, UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 2. SAMEESH M.S. @ ANIYAN, S/O. SARALAPPAN, AGED 25 YEARS, RESIDING AT MATTATHIL HOUSE, CHERUPURAM KARA, RAJAKKAD, UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 3. MANOJ M.P., S/O. PHILIP, AGED 36 YEARS, RESIDING AT MAZHUVANCHIRAYIL HOUSE, PAZHAYAVIDUTHI KARA, RAJAKKAD VILLAGE, UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.S.RAJEEV RESPONDENT/ STATE: ---------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. (O.R.NO.12 OF 2009 OF NARCOTIC ENFORCEMENT SQUAD, ADIMALY). SRI. M.S.BREEZ, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 374 of 2010 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 2nd day of February, 2010 O R D E R This is an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Petitioners are accused Nos.2 to 4 in O.R.No.12 of 2009 of Narcotic Enforcement Squad, Adimaly, Idukki. 2. The offence alleged against the petitioners is under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. 3. The prosecution case is that on getting secret information that ganja was being stored in the house of accused No.1, the Narcotic Enforcement Squad of the Excise Department, Adimali, conducted a search in the house of accused No.1. They found a quantity of 64.7 Kgs of dry ganja in the house. It was also found that all the accused persons were dealing with the same and were engaged in weighing and separating the same. All the accused persons were arrested on 22/9/2009 and they were remanded to judicial custody. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that B.A. No. 374 /2010 2 the case of accused Nos. 2 to 4 is different from that of accused No.1. Accused Nos. 2 to 4 have no criminal antecedents. It is submitted that accused Nos. 2 to 4 had gone to the house of accused No.1 for the settlement of a dealing with respect to the purchase of the vehicle. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the Bail Application. It is stated that the Enforcement Squad found all the accused persons dealing with ganja in the house of accused No.1. It is submitted that accused Nos.2 to 4 have complicity in the offence and they were not merely present in the house of accused No.1. 6. Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act provides that no person accused of an offence punishable for the offences involving commercial quantity shall be released on bail where the public prosecutor opposes the Bail Application, unless the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such offence and that accused is not likely to commit any offene while on bail. B.A. No. 374 /2010 3 7. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be held that there are no reasonable grounds for believing that the accused persons are not guilty of the offence. It cannot also be said that the accused persons are not likely to commit any offence while on bail. Therefore, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, the Bail Application is dismissed. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE scm