Denny Kunhappan vs State Of Kerala

C.S.Dias, J

The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the accused in O.S.No.62/2024 of Air Intelligence Unit, Cochin International Airport Limited, Nedumbassery, which is registered against him, for allegedly committing the offence punishable under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The petitioner was arrested on 03.02.2024.

The crux of the prosecution allegation is that: on 03.02.2024, the accused was intercepted at the Cochin International Airport and in the search that was conducted, 3.29 Kgs. of ganja was seized from his luggage. Thus, the accused has committed the above offence.

Heard; Sri. Goutham Krishna U.B., the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Sreelal N. Warrier, the Special Prosecutor appearing for the second respondent.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusation levelled against him. He has been been falsely implicated in the crime. In any given case, the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 03.02.2024, the investigation in the case is practically complete and recovery has been effected. Therefore, the petitioner’s further detention is unnecessary. Hence, the petitioner may be released on bail.

The learned Special Prosecutor opposed the application. Nonetheless, he conceded to the fact that the investigation in the case is practically complete and recovery has been effected. He stated that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents.

On an anxious consideration of the facts, the rival submissions made across the Bar, and the materials placed on record, especially taking into account the fact that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 03.02.2024, that the contraband involved in the case is of an intermediate quantity, that the petitioner does not have criminal antecedents, that the investigation in the case has progressed and recovery has been effected, I am of the view that the petitioner’s further detention is unnecessary. Hence, I am inclined to allow the bail application.

In the result, the application is allowed, by directing the petitioner to be released on bail on him executing a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum, to the satisfaction of the court having jurisdiction, which shall be subject to the following conditions:

(i) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on every alternate Saturdays between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m for a period of three months or till the final report is laid, whichever is earlier. He shall also appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required;

(ii) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or procure to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any Police Officer or tamper with the evidence in any manner, whatsoever;

(iii)The petitioner shall not commit any offence while he is on bail;

(iv) The petitioner shall surrender his passport, if any, before the court below at the time of execution of the bond. If he has no passport, he shall file an affidavit to the effect before the court below on the date of execution of the bond;

(v) In case  of  violation  of any  of the  conditions mentioned above, the jurisdictional court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation of bail, if any filed, and pass orders on the same, in accordance with law.

(vi) Applications for deletion/modification of the bail conditions shall be moved and entertained by the court below.

(vii) Needless to mention, it would be well within the powers of the Investigating Officer to investigate the matter and, if necessary, to effect recoveries on the information, if any, given by the petitioner even while the petitioner is on bail as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal v. State(NCT of Delhi) and Anr. [2020 (1) KHC 663].