IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 9TH JULY 2009 / 18TH ASHADHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 3241 of 2009() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.723/2009 OF KOTHAMANGALAM POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED (IN CUSTODY) --------------------------------------------------- BABU,AGED 48 YEARS,S/O.KUNJAPPAN, PALAKKAPARAMBIL HOUSE,CHAMAPPARA, MAMALAKANDOM, KUTTAMPUZHA VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.GEORGE(PUTHIYIDAM) RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA,(CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,KOTHAMANGALAM POLICE STATION),REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ---------------------------- B.A.No.3241 of 2009 ------------------------------ Dated this the 9th day of July, 2009 ORDER This is an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.723 of 2009 of Kothamangalam Police Station. 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 24.3.2009, the petitioner was found in possession of 1.260 kgms. of ganja oil. The application for bail submitted by the petitioner was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge as per the order dated 26th May 2009. Learned Sessions Judge held that in view of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the petitioner cannot be granted bail as the conditions therein are not satisfied. 4. Learned public prosecutor opposed the Bail Application. There are no grounds for believing that the petitioner is not guilty of the offence alleged against him or that he is not likely to commit any offence, if bail is granted. 5. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the BA No. 3241/2009 2 case, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. It is apposite to note here that in paragraph 1 of the Bail Application, it is mentioned that the contraband involved in this case is 1260 gms. of ganja while really it is 1260 gms. of ganja oil. In paragraph 2 of the Bail Application mention is made about 1.260 grams of ganja. The difference in quantity makes a great difference in considering an application for bail. The petitioner was not justified in making such incorrect statements in the Bail Application. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE csl