BAIL APPL No. 5052 of 2008 · Kerala High Court

K.HEMA, J.-------------------------------------------------------Bail Application No.5052 of 2008-------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 13th day of August, 2008

O R D E RThis petition is for bail.

The alleged offence is under Section 20(b)(ii)(c)Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985.According to the prosecution, first accused concealed ganja in aforest area and the police officer detected the crime but, on seeing police, the accused ran away from the scene. Thereafter, he was arrested and he confessed that the second accused was also involved in the offence, who carried the ganja to the place from where the ganja was seized. Hence, the second accused was arrested and he is in custody from 22.3.2008 onwards.

Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the allegations made. Except the confession allegedly made by the first accused, there is absolutely nothing on record to connect the petitioner with the crime. According to him, petitioner does not believe that the first accused had made any such confession which is untrue. But, the police asked the petitioner over phone to go to the BA No.5052/082 police station. In obedience, he went the police station on22.3.2008 and at that time, he was arrested on the allegation that he is involved in this case.

Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that had the petitioner been guilty, he would not have gone to the police station, on getting a mere telephone call from the police. Thecrime is registered on 14.3.2008 and if at all, the petitioner had any involvement in the crime, he would not have dared to go to the police station within a week. Learned counsel for petitioner also pointed out that in the remand report itself it is mentioned that petitioner had gone to the police station and he was arrested from there. This conduct itself shows his innocence in the matter and hence, he may not be detained in further custody, it is submitted. According to learned counsel for petitioner, petitioner is an agriculturist and he has no role in the offence.

This petition is opposed. Learned public prosecutor, however, conceded that the only material available against petitioner in the case diary is the confession statement of the first accused. First accused implicated the petitioner with the crime and petitioner also confessed his guilt. The quantity BA No.5052/083 involved is 41 kg. of ganja and hence, if bail is being granted to the petitioner, stringent conditions may be imposed.

On hearing both sides, it is clear that the petitioner was in custody for the past 141 days. But, in spite of the expiry of 141 days, no material could be collected to implicate the petitioner with the crime. There is no other crime against the petitioner and he is not involved in any other offence involving the ganja. The respondent has no case that the petitioner is involved in any other crime. In short, except an alleged confession statement made to the police officer, there is nothing to connect the petitioner with the crime.