Abdul Azeez and Sameera vs State of Kerala and Sub Inspector of Police

S.S. Satheesachandran, J.—Petitioners are accused A1 and A2 in Crime No. 235/2013 of Kumbala Police station registered for offence punishable under 20(b)(ii)(c) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (for short, ''NDPS Act''). The allegation is that both the accused persons were found in possession of Ganja, a narcotic substance, kept by them for sale. From a scooter belonging to the 1st accused, which was parked in front of the residential building of the 2nd accused, it is alleged, 14.100 kg of Ganja kept for sale by the 1st accused was seized into custody. From the residential building occupied by 2nd accused with her husband and children close to the place where the scooter was parked, it is alleged, 12.75 kgs of Ganja kept for sale was recovered. Seizing the contraband detected, both petitioners were arrested on 9.4.2013, and next day, on production before the Magistrate, they were remanded to judicial custody. The investigation of the crime is now in progress and, at this stage, petitioners have moved the above application seeking their enlargement on bail. I heard learned counsel for petitioners and also learned Public Prosecutor. So far as the 2nd petitioner, a lady, even on the allegations imputed in the report giving rise to registration of the crime, there is no specific imputation to hold that she possessed the contraband but only that contraband was detected in the residential building occupied by her with her husband and children, according to the counsel. Her relationship with 1st petitioner, from whose possession, as kept in a scooter, substantial quantity of Ganja was detected, had given rise to her implication also without any basis as a co-accused in the crime, is the submission of counsel. The facts and circumstances presented in the case would show, even if the allegations set out are accepted on its face value, that 2nd petitioner could not be imputed of having joint possession of contraband with 1st accused, which was detected from the scooter belonging to 1st accused, is the further submission of counsel. The contraband alleged to have been seized from the house would only show that she had possession of intermediate quantity and not of commercial quantity. In the above circumstances, having regard to the fact that she was in occupation of a rented building with her husband and children and, thus, could not be stated of having independent occupation of that building, learned counsel contends that atleast 2nd petitioner deserve indulgence of this Court for her release on bail subject to conditions as deemed fit and proper.

Opposing the application vehemently, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the materials gathered during investigation of the crime would show the complicity of both the accused persons in the grave offences imputed and, at this stage, when investigation is continuing with the source from where petitioners have collected the contraband is yet to be unearthed, their release on bail will not be conducive to justice. After considering the submissions made by learned counsel for petitioners and also learned Public Prosecutor, having regard to the facts and circumstances presented, more particularly, the quantity of Ganja alleged to have been seized from the possession of the petitioners, that too, from the residential building occupied by the 2nd petitioner and close to her premise, as kept in a scooter, I find this is not a fit case where petitioners can be enlarged on bail at this stage. No doubt, the interdiction placed u/s 37(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act should be taken due note out in adjudging the merit of the application filed for by a suspect involved in the crime. That also being taken into account, and where there are circumstances generating strong room to doubt the complicity of petitioners both of them for the offence imputed, I find their release on bail, at this stage, is impermissible. Petition is dismissed.