This is an application filed by the third accused in Crime No.243/Cr/09 of CBCID (OCW-III) Thrissur/Palakkad) for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. It was alleged in the petition that the petitioner has been arrayed as the third accused in Crime No.243/CR/09 which is being investigated by the CBCID as OCW-III, Thrissur/Palakkad. The offences alleged against the petitioner is punishable under Section 21(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropics Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as the NDPS Act). Initially the crime was registered by the Excise Enforcement and Anti Narcotic Special squad, Thrissur as Crime No.1/2009. The first accused was arrested on 15.1.2009 along with the contraband article and on the basis of the statement given by the first accused, accused 2 and 3 were implicated and the second accused surrendered on 17.9.2009 and he was remanded to custody and thereafter both of them were released on bail. The petitioner has been arrayed as the third accused on the basis of the statement given by one of the co-accused. At the time when the alleged incident happened, he was in Kuwait jail. He is in Kuwait jail from 18.9.2004 onwards and he was suffering imprisonment for 10 years. Now he is likely to be deported after completion of the sentence from Kuwait and he is anticipating arrest in this case. The case of the investigating agency cannot be believed as there was no possibility of the petitioner involving in the alleged crime for which investigation is being conducted by the present investigating agency. So he prayed for allowing the application.
3. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that there is no possibility of the petitioner being involved as alleged by the prosecution. Further in a similar matter, in Crime No.2518/2012 of Kunnamkulam police station in which the present petitioner was arrayed as the second accused, this Court disposed of that bail application by order dated 23.9.2014 directing the petitioner to surrender before the investigating officer and on interrogation, if his arrest is required, after recording his arrest produce before the competent court and the petitioner is free to move for regular bail before that court and the learned senior counsel wanted only such a direction in this application also.
4. The application was opposed by the Public Prosecutor on the ground that look out notice has already been issued and the Emigration Authorities are likely to arrest the petitioner and produce him before the investigating officer.
5. The case of the prosecution as seen from the allegations is that as financed by the third accused from Kuwait, accused 1 and 2 were engaged in transiting narcotic substances from India to Kuwait and collecting narcotic substances from India and importing the same to Kuwait and for this purpose the finance is being made by the third accused from Kuwait. The case was originally registered by the Excise Enforcement and Anti Narcotic Special Squad when first the accused was arrested along with the contraband article on 15.1.2009 as Crime No.1/2009 and on the basis of the statement given by the first accused, second accused and on the basis of the statement of the second accused, the petitioner were implicated. On the basis of the statement, it was revealed that at the instruction of the third accused from Kuwait and as financed by him, they are collecting the narcotic substance from several places in India and importing the same to Kuwait for the purpose of third accused to sell the same in Kuwait and accordingly Section 21(c) of the NDPS Act was alleged against them. Further it is also seen from the allegations in crime No.2518/2012 of Kunnamkulam police station in which the petitioner was arrayed as second accused alleging that he had committed the offences under sections 468, 471, 490 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 12(1)(B) of Indian Passport Act and 27 A and 29 of the NDPS Act along with the first accused and he filed application for anticipatory bail before this court as B.A.No.6108/2014 and this Court found that it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail and he cannot file an application for anticipatory bail as he is not available in India relying on the decision reported in Souda Beevi v. Sub Inspector of Police (2011 (4) KLT 52), but disposed of the bail application as follows:
“In the event of the petitioner being deported as a free citizen, he shall surrender before the investigating officer/first respondent and submit himself for interrogation and thereafter he shall be produced before the competent court. The petitioner is free to move for regular bail before that court.'”
6. So considering the circumstances, this Court feels that this petition also can be disposed of on the same lines. So the application is disposed of as follows:
“In the event of the petitioner being deported as a free citizen, he shall surrender before the Investigating Officer/1st respondent and submit himself for interrogation and thereafter, he shall be produced before the competent court. The petitioner is free to move for regular bail before that court”.
Sd/-
K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.
cl /true copy/ P.S to Judge