Prosecution Could Not Show That Alleged Involvement Of Accused In Subsequent Crime Has Any Nexus With Any Proceedings In The Case: Kerala HC Sets Aside Order Cancelling Bail Of NDPS Accused

In this revision petition, the High Court was considering a challenge to the order on the file of the Additional Sessions Court (Adhoc-II), Thiruvananthapuram. The petitioner is the accused and has been alleged to have committed the offence punishable under Section 20(b) (ii) (B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

The Single-Judge Bench of Justice K. Babu said, “The principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception has been well recognised by judicial pronouncements. This is the principle underlined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India.”

Advocate Gokul D. Sudhakaran represented the Petitioner while PP G. Sudheer represented the Respondent.

The facts of the case suggested that the petitioner was found in possession of 2.045 Kgs of Ganja. The Sessions Court granted bail to the petitioner, however, it imposed certain conditions while granting bail to the petitioner. Thereafter, another case was registered against him alleging offences punishable under Sections 324, 326, 323, 294(b), 506 and 34 of the IPC but he was granted bail therein as well. The Investigating Officer in the former crime submitted an application before the Additional Sessions Court-II seeking cancellation of bail on the ground that the petitioner violated condition No.4 in the order granting bail. The Sessions Judge allowed the application and cancelled his bail. This order was under challenge in this revision petition.

It was the petitioner’s case that the conditions imposed by the Sessions Judge while granting bail were not in force while he was implicated in another crime. However, the Public Prosecutor contended that the condition imposed by the Sessions Court while granting bail in the former crime continues even after the submission of the final report.

It was noticed that during the crime stage, the petitioner was granted bail by the Sessions Court. Conditions were imposed by the Sessions Court for the smooth completion of the trial. The Investigating Agency completed the investigation and submitted the final report. The prosecution had no case that he ever interfered with the investigation. One year after the submission of the final report, the police registered another crime The prosecution had not produced any material to show that the alleged involvement of the petitioner in the subsequent crime had any nexus with the trial or any of the proceedings in the case.

“There is nothing to show that he had an intention to interfere with the administration of justice as far as the trial of the first case is concerned. The learned Sessions Judge mechanically invoked the jurisdiction to cancel the bail. The learned Sessions Judge has not gone into any of the merits of the allegations levelled against him in the subsequent crime. The Sessions Judge has, in fact, failed to discharge his solemn duty concerning the liberty of an individual”, the Bench stated.

The Bench noticed that the consequence of the impugned order cancelling the bail resulted in a substitute for preventive detention. The Sessions Judge, while granting bail to the petitioner, never perceived the condition that he shall not be involved in any other offence to continue throughout the trial. “The Sessions Judge only wanted or intended for the investigation to be completed smoothly without any interference on the part of the accused. The impugned order is liable to be set aside”, it said.

Thus, the order on the file of the Additional Sessions Court-II, Thiruvananthapuram, cancelling the bail of the accused was set aside and the Criminal Revision Petition was allowed.

Cause Title: Visakh v. State of Kerala [Neutral Citation- 2024:KER:80213]

Appearance:

Petitioner: Advocate Gokul D. Sudhakaran

Respondent: PP G. Sudheer

Click here to read/ download Order