High Court Kerala High Court

Divanji P.M. @ Mukil vs The Excise Inspector on 3 September, 2008

Kerala High Court
Divanji P.M. @ Mukil vs The Excise Inspector on 3 September, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl..No. 5491 of 2008()


1. DIVANJI P.M. @ MUKIL, S/O MURALI,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE EXCISE INSPECTOR, CHANGANACHERRY
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA

 Dated :03/09/2008

 O R D E R
                              K.HEMA, J.

                  -----------------------------------------

                         B.A.No.5491 of 2008

                  -----------------------------------------

                Dated this the 3rd September, 2008

                               O R D E R

This petition is for bail.

2. The alleged offence is under Section 20(b)(ii)B of the NDPS

Act. According to prosecution, the Excise party conducted a raid

and found 4.25 Kg of Ganja in a house. From the possession of the

petitioner’s father, 200 grams of Ganja were seized. The case is that

the petitioner and his father were in joint possession of the

contraband article seized from the house.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the petitioner

is a lorry driver by profession and he is innocent of the allegations

made. The house belongs to the father of the petitioner and nothing

was seized from the possession of the petitioner. Petitioner was

arrested on 29.7.2008 and he is in custody since then.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that a huge quantity

of Ganja is involved in this case. The petitioner as well as his father

are in possession of the house. Both are adult members and they

are in joint possession of the Ganja seized from the house. Taking

into consideration the quantity of Ganja and the nature of the

investigation required, this petition is opposed.

5. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that at this stage

there is no material available to exonerate the petitioner from the

crime. In the nature of the investigation required, it may not be

proper to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage.

Petition is dismissed.

K.HEMA, JUDGE

vgs.