High Court Kerala High Court

P.V.Abdul Salam vs State Of Kerala Through The on 11 May, 2010

Kerala High Court
P.V.Abdul Salam vs State Of Kerala Through The on 11 May, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl..No. 2573 of 2010()


1. P.V.ABDUL SALAM, S/O.KUNHIBABA,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA THROUGH THE
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.SUNNY MATHEW

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.Q.BARKATH ALI

 Dated :11/05/2010

 O R D E R
                     P.Q. BARKATH ALI, J.
                     --------------------------------
                     B.A. No. 2573 OF 2010
                    ----------------------------------
             Dated this the 11th day of April, 2010

                              O R D E R

~~~~~~~~

This is a bail application filed by the accused in S.C.5/2010

on the file of the Court of the Special Judge (NDPS Act Cases)

Vadakara under section 439 of the Cr.P.C.

2. The petitioner is the 3rd accused in Crime No.1/2005 of

Excise Inspector, Sulthan Bathery. The allegation against the

petitioner is that on 22.1.2005, he along with accused Nos. 1, 2,

4 and 5 transported 50kgs. and 950 grams of opium from

Rajastan to Kerala in a mini lorry bearing registration No.

RJ-06-G-2199 and thereby committed an offence punishable

under section 18(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic

Substances Act. The case was charge sheeted and taken on file

as S.C.No.19/2005. Accused Nos.1 and 2 faced the trial and the

1st accused was convicted and the 2nd accused was acquitted by

the lower court. As the petitioner was absconding, the case

against him was transferred to L.P. register as L.P.No.10/2006.

The petitioner was arrested and produced on 5.4.2010 before the

BA No.2573/2010 2

lower court and the case was refiled as S.C.No.5/2005. The

learned Special Judge (NDPS Act Cases) Vadakara dismissed his

bail application.

3. It is alleged in the petition that the petitioner was

never absconding that he had filed Cr.M.C. 2598/2005 for

discharging him and also approached the Hon’ble Supreme

Court.

4. Notice given to the learned Public Prosecutor. Heard

learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public

Prosecutor. This petition is strongly opposed by the learned

Public Prosecutor.

5. It is the admitted fact that he was once released on

bail. Further, the counsel for the petitioner produced the

judgments of the lower court, in which the 1st accused was

convicted and the 2nd accused was acquitted. The petitioner was

impleaded in this case as an accused only on the basis of a

telephone number given by the 1st accused. The petitioner

BA No.2573/2010 3

undertakes that he will appear before the trial court on all

hearing dates. In these circumstances, I feel that the petitioner

can be released on bail.

6. In the result, the application is allowed. The petitioner

shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs.25,000/-

with two solvent sureties for like sum each to the satisfaction of

the lower court on the following condition:-

The petitioner shall appear before the
trial court on all hearing dates, failing
which the lower court can cancel his bail.

(P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JUDGE)

ps