IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 2251 of 2010()
1. SARJUNATH,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. INTELLIGENCE OFFICER,
For Petitioner :SRI.G.SUDHEER
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA
Dated :22/06/2010
O R D E R
K.HEMA, J
-----------------------
B.A No.2251 OF 2010
--------------------------------
Dated this the 22nd day of June 2010
ORDER
This petition is for anticipatory bail.
2. The alleged offences are under Sections 8(c) r/w 21(a),
27A, 28&29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.
According to prosecution, Intelligence Officer, Narcotic Control
Bureau got reliable information that first accused who was in
possession of heroin was about to hand over it to third accused
(petitioner) at the railway station. The officials went to railway
station and found first accused in possession of about 500 gms. of
heroin. He was arrested and on interrogation, it was revealed
that heroin was procured by first accused for the purpose of
exporting it to Mali to petitioner’s husband through petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
petitioner is unnecessarily implicated in this case only because
petitioner’s husband is in Mali. False allegation is made that
heroin is transported by her. Except the statement of co-accused,
there is absolutely nothing on record to show that petitioner in
any manner connected with the contraband article, it is
submitted.
B.A No.2251 OF 2010 2
4. This petition is opposed. Learned Standing Counsel for
the second respondent submitted that it was on getting specific
information that the article is being handed over to petitioner, tht
the officials went to railway station. On questioning first accused
after his arrest from railway station, it was revealed that heroin
was proposed to be exported to Mali through petitioner.
Petitioner’s whereabouts are not known . She is not available in
the address and proceedings under Section 82 and 83 Cr.P.C are
also taken against her. If anticipatory bail is granted, it will
adversely affect the investigation, it is submitted.
6. On hearing both sides, considering the serious nature of
the allegations made and the facts and circumstances of the case,
I am satisfied that petitioner is required for interrogation and if
anticipatory bail is granted to petitioner, it will adversely affect
the investigation. It also appears that she is an absconding
accused against whom proceedings are initiated under Section 82
and 83 Cr.P.C.
Petition is dismissed.
K.HEMA
JUDGE
vdv