Absence Of Rational Nexus Between Contraband & Accused Is No Reason To Hold Allegation Of Prosecution As False: Kerala HC

However, the Bench of Justice A. Badharudeen observed that the absence of rational nexus between the contraband and the petitioner, “is not a reason to hold that the prosecution allegation, as such, is false and the allegation as to involvement of the petitioner in this crime may be true”.

Advocate Jhonson Gomez appeared for the Petitioner and Advocate P.G. Manu appeared for the Respondent.

In a brief background, based on secret information, the first accused was found in possession of 1.540 kgs of Ganja, inside the scooter kept in the Yamaha showroom. On this premise, the prosecution alleged the commission of offences punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(B), 60(3) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). It was further alleged that the third accused was also involved in possessing contraband.

The Petitioner challenged this allegation contending that he was arrayed as the third accused in this crime, without the support of any materials, and the one and only piece of evidence collected by the Investigating Officer to implicate him was the confession statement recorded as that of the first accused at the time of his body search.

After considering the submissions, the Bench was curious that a person, who was not even ready to disclose his name and address, had given information as to the sale of Ganja by the petitioner, by keeping the same in a scooter, kept at Yamaha showroom, Bharat Motors, near Changanacherry.

“It is true that in the mahazar, it is stated that, when the investigation team about to reach Yamaha showroom, a person, with characteristics of Subin, ran away and another person present therein identified him as Subin. Further, Amal Kumar, whose name also recorded in the secret information, was present and was questioned. But nothing recovered from his possession. Thereafter, 30 gm of Ganja was recovered from his pocket and 1.51 kg of Ganja was recovered from the scooter kept at the showroom”, noted the Single Judge.

Therefore, the High Court held that the effective and impartial investigation must go on and the same should be left to the domain of the Investigating Officer.

Resultantly, the High Court enlarged the Petitioner on anticipatory bail, subject to the condition that he shall surrender before the Investigating Officer for a question session. However, in case he was arrested, the Investigating Officer shall produce the petitioner before the Special Court on the date of arrest itself.

Cause Title: Ajay Thomas v. State of Kerala and Anr.

Click here to read/download the Order