Sanal vs State Of Kerala

Mohammed Nias C.P., J.

Apprehending arrest in Crime No.841 of 2023 of Karunagapally police station, Kollam District, registered for offences punishable under Sections 22(C) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, the petitioner has filed this petition.

The prosecution allegation is that, in order to purchase MDMA Synthetic Drug for the purpose of sale, the first accused made a payment of Rs.88,000/- (eighty-eight Thousand) to the Google Pay account referred to him by the fourth accused. Thereupon, the first accused reached Bangalore with the second accused and they were handed over the MDMA contraband at Brookfield, Bangalore by the fifth accused as per the instruction of the fourth accused. It is alleged that the petitioner/third accused paid an amount of Rs.52,000/- to the first accused to buy the MDMA contraband in the aforesaid transaction which is been seized in the instant crime, and thereby committed the above offence.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners Sri.S.Rajeev and Sri.C.S.Sumesh, and the learned Public Prosecutor were heard.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is nothing to connect the petitioner with the crime except the confession of A1, there is nothing to prove for the alleged transfer through CDMA and that he had filed a complaint against the drug mafia on 09/03/2022, the said act led to him being implicated. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner is a driver by profession and he is a campaigner against the use of drugs and he has allegiance to a political party and hence a conspiracy was hatched by a rival gang to include the array of accused.

Learned Public Prosecutor opposing the application submits that apart from the confession of A1, the CCTV footage of the bank where the CDMA machine was kept was examined and the person who operated the said machine had given a statement that payment was effected on the basis of the direction by A3. The prosecution thus alleges that the sellers of the contraband procured the same for and on behalf of A3 and he is the person who funded the same. It is also his argument that the vehicle bearing registration No.KL 61 B1 2110 was seized, and it was found that the said vehicle was pledged with the petitioner for having lent money to its owner. The building owned by A3 and the adjoining building which is owned by the wife of A3 were also searched. It is also argued that the subsequent conduct of the petitioner absconding soon after the arrest of A1 and A2 also speaks against him. The custodial interrogation of the petitioner is absolutely necessary to find out the modes operendi of the dealings. The bank transaction details also point towards an interstate drug dealing of the petitioner.

Having considered the rival submissions, the seriousness of the charge levelled against the petitioner and the facts brought out by the prosecution, I do not think that this is a case for the grant of anticipatory bail as prima facie there are materials to connect the petitioner with the crime. It is also to be noticed that the offences alleged are under the NDPS Act and the grant of anticipatory bail will certainly hamper a proper investigation. Under such circumstances, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

Accordingly, the bail application is dismissed.