Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 6 (KER)

Burhanudheen Hyderali v. State of Kerala

2024-01-03

VIJU ABRAHAM

body2024
ORDER : 1. This is an application for regular bail. 2. The petitioner is the 1st accused in Crime No. 375/2022 of Mannuthy Police Station alleging the commission of offences punishable under Section 22(c) of the NDPS Act. 3. The prosecution allegation is that on 13.05.2022, the police party detected that the petitioner possessed 197 gms of MDMA while in a service road near the over bridge at Mannuthy and the petitioner was arrested from the spot. 4. Petitioner submits that he has been falsely implicated in the above said crime and that he has been in custody from 14.05.2022 onwards and that a final report is already filed and therefore continued detention of the petitioner is not required for the purpose of the investigation. It is further submitted that though the alleged contraband was stated to be MDMA, in the chemical analysis, it was found to be methamphetamine. He would further submit that the trial of the case has not yet commenced and that he has no other criminal antecedents. He relies on the orders in Jiju Maran v. Narcotic Control Bureau, 2004 (2) KLT 690 and Fasil v. State of Kerala, 2023 KLT Online 1615 in support of his contention. The learned Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the application for bail mainly contending that commercial quantity of synthetic drug was seized from the possession of the petitioner and as per the statement of the petitioner, he obtained the said quantity of narcotic drug from an African national and based on the same one Faris Mokhtar Babiker Ali, an African national was arrested and arrayed as the second accused. On the basis of the statement given by the second accused that he was given the alleged contraband by another African national one Anayao Ebuka Victor @ Ken, was arrested and arrayed as third accused. 5. I have called for a report from the trial court concerned regarding the present stage of the case. It was reported that the case is posted for hearing on the charge to 16.01.2024 and in view of the pendency of other cases, at least 8 months’ time is required for the completion of the trial. 6. 5. I have called for a report from the trial court concerned regarding the present stage of the case. It was reported that the case is posted for hearing on the charge to 16.01.2024 and in view of the pendency of other cases, at least 8 months’ time is required for the completion of the trial. 6. This is a case in which huge commercial quantity of contraband is involved and the contraband was seized from the possession of the petitioner and in view of the same, I am of the opinion that the decisions cited by the petitioner are not applicable in the facts of the present case. In view of the fact that commercial quantity of contraband is involved whereby the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act will come into play and in view of the transaction of alleged contraband through various foreign nationals, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage. 7. Taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner is in custody for long, the trial court shall see that the trial of the case is expedited and completed within an outer limit of eight months from the date of the receipt of the copy of the order. It is made clear that if the trial of the case is unduly delayed, the petitioner will be free to approach this Court or the trial court concerned seeking bail.