IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN TUESDAY, THE 21ST APRIL 2009 / 1ST VAISAKHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 2039 of 2009() ----------------------------- CRMP.218/2009 of SPL. COURT (NDPS ACT CASES), VADAKARA (CRIME NO.1 OF 2009 OF THE KANNUR POLICE STATION WHICH IS NOW PENDING BEFORE THE EXCISE ENFORCEMENT AND ANTINARCOTIC CELL, KANNUR.) .................... PETITIONER - 2ND ACCUSED ---------------------------------- P.BIJU, SON OF GOPI, CHOVVAPRATH HOUSE, KUTTIYATTOOR P.O., KANNUR DIST. BY ADV. SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER RESPONDENT- STATE ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, KOCHI -31. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. C.K.SURESH THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.K.MOHANAN, J. --------------------------------------- B.A. No.2039 OF 2009 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of April, 2009 O R D E R This is an application for regular bail, at the instance of the second accused, in crime No.1/2009 of the Kannur Police Station where the offence alleged is under Section 20(b)(II)(B) of N.D.P.S. Act. Petitioner was arrested on 28.03.2009 and thereafter, he is in judicial custody and hence, seeks regular bail. 2. The allegation against the petitioner and other accused is that they were found in possession of 2.5 Kgs. of ganja at Thoonoli Bank Road in Kannur Municipality. Though the petitioner approached the Court of the Special Judge (N.D.P.S. Act cases), Vatakara for regular bail, the same was dismissed as per Annexure I order. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even according to the prosecution, the allegation against the petitioner/second accused is that he was found in possession of B.A.No.2039 of 2009 2 1,050 gms. of ganja, which will come only small quantity and therefore, the offence alleged is only a bailable offence as far as the petitioner is concerned. In support of the above contention, the learned counsel very much relied upon the observation contained in Annexure I order. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor stoutly opposed the petition and submitted that the petitioner/second accused along with other accused involved in the offence and from their possession, 2.5 Kgs. of ganja was recovered and therefore, according to the Public Prosecutor, the petitioner is not entitled to get bail at this stage. 5. I have carefully considered the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor and also perused Annexure I order. The petitioner was arrested only on 28.03.2009 and even one month's time is not over after the arrest. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, petitioner/second accused was found in possession of only 1,050 gms. of ganja and 1 Kg. being the minimum quantity and what alleged to have possessed in excess of the minimum quantity is only 50 gms. B.A.No.2039 of 2009 3 and therefore, he is entitled to get bail. I am not proposed to enter into any discussion and finding regarding those points since such finding or discussion is likely to adversely affect either the prosecution or the defence. Considering the fact that the total quantity of ganja involved is 2.5 Kgs. and the petitioner was arrested only on 28.03.2009 and the investigation is in progress, I am of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to get bail at this stage. It is open to the petitioner to approach this court on a subsequent stage with the same relief, if he so advised. In the result, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed accordingly. V.K.MOHANAN JUDGE pac