This is an application filed by the 2nd accused in Crime No.1309 of 2014 of Hill Palace Police station for regular bail under under Sec.439 of Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code' for short). 2. The case of the prosecution in nutshell was that on 11.08.2014 at about 9.45 p.m., the accused along with the 1st accused were found to be in possession of 11.490 kgs of ganja in a house No.XXXIV/350 and thereby, they have committed the offences punishable under Secs.20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (for short, 'the NDPS Act') .
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence and he is innocent of the same. He has been falsely implicated in this case. In fact, he is not residing in that house and he is residing in the house at Kakkanad and he has no connection with the article seized and he has no connection with the 1st accused as well. He is in jail from 11.08.2014 onwards.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application on the ground that investigation is completed and final report has already been filed and the petitioner is involved in another crime of similar nature as well.
5. Heard both sides and perused the case diary.
6. It is seen from the case diary file that on getting information regarding the possession of ganja in the house mentioned above, the empowered officer had conducted a search in that house and found both the accused in the house and 11.490 Kgs of ganja were seized from that house which is in possession of the petitioner and the other accused person. Thereafter, the above crime was registered. It is seen from the records that the investigation of the case is over and final report has already been filed. Further, the present petitioner was accused in Crime No.1527 of 2013 of the Palarivattom Police station for committing similar offences and while he was on bail in that case, he had committed the present crime as well.
7. Considering the circumstances and also the conduct of the petitioner, this court feels that it is not a fit case to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage, as persons like the petitioner are committing such crimes ignoring the impact of their act on the society and it is being done only for their monetary benefits. So, considering the circumstances, this court feels that it is not a fit case to grant bail to the petitioner and the petition is liable to be dismissed.
In the result, the bail application is rejected.
Sd/-
K. RAMAKRISHNAN JUDGE / True Copy / NS P.A. To Judge