High Court Kerala High Court

Lalu vs State Of Kerala on 3 December, 2008

Kerala High Court
Lalu vs State Of Kerala on 3 December, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl..No. 7359 of 2008()


1. LALU, S/O.CHACKO, THETTALIKAL HOUSE
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.SANTHOSH  (PODUVAL)

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA

 Dated :03/12/2008

 O R D E R
                             K.HEMA, J.
                      ------------------------------
                      B.A. No.7359 OF 2008
                      ------------------------------
             Dated this the 3rd day of December, 2008


                              O R D E R

This petition is for bail.

2. According to prosecution, on 07.11.2008, the excise

party received information that Ganja was being transported by

the accused in a vehicle and on proceeding to the place, they

found a vehicle being parked, in which the petitioner was sitting.

On search of the vehicle, it was found to contain 1.015 Kgs. of

Ganja. The petitioner was arrested and mahazar was prepared. A

crime is registered under Section 20(b)(ii)B of Narcotic Drugs

and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that a false

case has been foisted against petitioner alleging that he was

found transporting Ganja in a vehicle driven by him. Later, when

they understood that petitioner does not even know driving and

also that he does not have a driving licence. The excise officials

went to his house and told his mother that a person should be

pointed out as a driver of the vehicle, if it is not do so, her son

would be made an accused etc. She was also threatened by the

excise officials. She made a complaint before the Superintendent

B.A.7359 of 2008
2

of Police in respect of such atrocities committed by the excise

officials.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner also submitted that

excise officials on knowing that a mistake was committed by

them deliberately deviated from their version and it was alleged

that vehicle was found parked beneath the tree and from the said

vehicle Ganja was seized. It was also alleged that the petitioner

was sitting in the vehicle in the passengers seat. If these

allegations are true, certainly there will be an investigation

regarding the driver of the vehicle and accused himself would be

asked about the details of the driver. But the mahazar does not

show that any attempt was made by the excise officials to

ascertain such details of the driver to petitioner. This itself is an

indication that the original case of the excise officials is that the

petitioner himself was driving the vehicle. Petitioner’s statement

was also recorded by the excise officials under his signature,

wherein it is clearly stated that he was arrested while he was

transporting the Ganja. Therefore there is evidently a deviation

from the original case and petitioner has a strong case to put

forward. Hence, petitioner may be granted bail, it is submitted.

B.A.7359 of 2008
3

5. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor

submitted that the Ganga seized is more than 1 kg., which is

more than small quantity and the petitioner was involved in

another crime also of similar nature. The specific case of the

prosecution is that Ganja was transported in the vehicle and the

details of the petitioner were stated in the mahazar itself. The

petitioner was arrested from the spot and the allegations to the

contrary are false and those are put forward by him only for the

sake of a defence. It is not fit to grant bail at this stage, since

investigation is being conducted into the source of the articles, it

is submitted.

6. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that it is true

that the petitioner was involved in another crime, but thereafter

he was leading a proper life, as a law abiding citizen and he

purchased a vehicle and he is eking his livelihood by running it

as a taxi. He also has a driver for driving the vehicle as a taxi, it

is submitted.

On hearing both sides and on going through the records, I

am satisfied that the petitioner has a strong defence to advance.

If the petitioner is detained in custody further, it may result in

B.A.7359 of 2008
4

great injustice.

Hence, bail is granted to the petitioner on the following

terms and conditions :

(i) Petitioner shall execute a bond for Rs.50,000/-

with two solvent sureties each for like sum to the

satisfaction of the Magistrate court concerned.

(ii) Petitioner shall report before Investigating

Officer on every Monday between 10 a.m. and 1

p.m. until further orders.

(iii) Petitioner shall not influence or intimidate any

witness or tamper with evidence or commit any

offence while on bail and in case of breach of

this condition, bail is liable to be cancelled.

The petition is allowed.

K.HEMA, JUDGE

pac