IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 18TH AUGUST 2011 / 27TH SRAVANA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 6572 of 2011() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.212/2011 OF PERUMPADAPPU POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM PETITIONER/ACCUSED --------------------------- 1. SHERIFF, S/O. SAIDALI, AGED 38 YEARS, KAYYALAKKAL HOUSE, PALLIKKURUPPU.P.O, MANNARKKAD. 2. SUBAIR, S/O. SAIDALI, RESIDING -DO- BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PERUMPADAP9PU POLICE STATION. 2. STATE, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.MANU THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J -------------------------------------- Bail Application No.6572 OF 2011 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of August 2011 ORDER Petitioners are two accused, A2 and A1 respectively, in Crime No.212/2011 of Perumpadappu Police Station, registered for the offence punishable under Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, hereinafter referred to as the NDPS Act. The investigation of the crime is now being continued incorporating offences under Section 21 and 29 of the NDPS Act also, with a report thereof being filed before the court. 2. The gist of the prosecution case is that the police got prior information that A1, A2 and A4 in the crime were transporting brown sugar and they were on the way to a place beside a theatre to hand it over to other accused (A3). Police party reached there, apprehended three among the accused including the present accused, while one among the accused got away and made himself scarce. The arrest of the accused as aforesaid was at about 5:30 p.m on 28-06-2011. It is further alleged that from the person of A1 (second petitioner), 900 gms of brown sugar and from A2, three small packets that too containing brown sugar, were recovered after B.A No.6572 OF 2011 2 having a search, allegedly, done in accordance with the procedure covered by the aforesaid Act. The allegations imputed against the petitioners are totally false, and, to defend the imputation levelled against them, the ends of justice require their enlargement on bail, is the submission of the learned counsel. It is further submitted, the offence with which the crime was registered relates to a psychotropic substance and as the allegations raised against the petitioners is of seizure of a narcotic drug, the very foundation of the prosecution case crumbles down and it is a fit case where release of the petitioners allowing their application for enlargement on bail deserve consideration. 3. The application is opposed to by the learned Public Prosecutor contending that the investigation is only in the preliminary stage. The source from which the contraband seized from the accused, the network involved in the distribution of such prohibited substance etc. deserve serious probe and, release of the petitioners now will obstruct fair investigation of the crime, submits the Public Prosecutor. Taking note of the submissions made as aforesaid, the counsel for the petitioner and also the Public Prosecutor, with reference to the riders imposed in the enlargement of a person suspected to have committed offence under the NDPS Act, as under Section 37, I find at any rate when the investigation is in the early stages, and where there is reason to suspect the B.A No.6572 OF 2011 3 culpability of the petitioners in the grave offences imputed, they are not entitled to be released on bail at this stage. Bail application dismissed. Sd/- vdv S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //True Copy// P.A to Judge