IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 2ND MARCH 2010 / 11TH PHALGUNA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 637 of 2010() ---------------------------- CRMP.239/2009 of SPL. COURT (NDPS ACT CASES), THODUPUZHA O.R. NO.12/2009 OF NARCOTIC ENFORCEMENT SQUAD, ADIMALY .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1: ------------------------------------------- MELBIN THOMAS, S/O.GEORGE, MOOLEPARAMBIL HOUSE, THINKALKADU KARA, KONNATHADY VILLAGE, UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.SUNNY MATHEW RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: ----------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA THROUGH THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF EXCISE, N.E.S. ADIMALY, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. SRI. TEKCHAND, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. T. SANKARAN, J. ------------------------- B.A. No. 637 of 2010 ---------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of March, 2010 O R D E R This is an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is the first accused in O.R. No.12/2009 of Narcotic Enforcement Squad, Adimaly. 2. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. 3. The prosecution case is that on 22/9/2009, Narcotic Enforcement Squad found a quantity of 64.7Kgs of dried ganja in the house of the first accused and accused Nos.1 to 4 were found dealing with the same. Accused Nos.1 to 4 were packing the ganja in small sacs. The petitioner was arrested on 22/9/2009 and he was remanded to judicial custody. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the application for bail. It is submitted that the first accused is involved in Crime No.1/2007 of Udumbanchola Excise Range, wherein he is accused No.2. The quantity of ganja involved in Crime No.1/2007 was 68.4 Kgs. B.A. No. 637/2010 2 5. Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act provides that when the Public Prosecutor opposes the Bail Application, bail can be granted only if the court is satisfied that reasonable ground exists for believing that the petitioner is not guilty of the offence and if the court is satisfied that the petitioner is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. 6. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner is not guilty of the offence. It cannot also be said that the petitioner is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. The criminal antecedents of the petitioner compel me to believe that if the petitioner is released on bail, he is likely to commit similar offence. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, I am of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to get bail. Bail Application is accordingly dismissed. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the investigation of the case is not completed and charge sheet is B.A. No. 637/2010 3 not filed, in spite of the fact that the petitioner was arrested on 22/9/2009. The counsel submitted that the dismissal of this Bail Application should not stand in the way of the petitioner applying for default bail, in case the investigating officer does not file the final report within 180 days as provided under the proviso to Section 36A (4) of the Act and if no application is filed for extension of the period as provided under the proviso. It is made clear that the dismissal of this Bail Application would not be a bar to the exercise of the statutory right of the petitioner under Section 36A(4) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act read with proviso to Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE scm