LAWS(KER)-2023-9-20

YUVARAJ Vs. STATE OF KERALA

Decided On September 14, 2023
YUVARAJ Appellant
V/S
STATE OF KERALA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application is filed under Sec. 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking regular bail.

(2.) The petitioner is the 8th accused in Crime No. 864/2022 of Pandalam Police Station for having allegedly committed offences punishable under Ss. 22(c), 60(3), 8(C) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.

(3.) The prosecution case, in short, is that, on 30/07/2022 at about 1.16 p.m., the Sub-Inspector of Police of Pandalam Police Station, Sreejith, while doing official duties received secret information within from jurisdiction of Pandalam Police Station that MDMA was kept in possession and was sold at Room No.106 in River Walk Hotel, Pandalam. He wrote the information in a white paper, and a copy of it was sent through Civil Police Officer No. 2815, to SHO. Thereafter, he proceeded to the Hotel along with police personnel, including women, prepared a search memo with witnesses, and entered Room No. 106, allegedly found in the room Accused Nos. 1, 2, and 3. The police officer allegedly informed them that he had received information that those three people had possessed MDMA, and then he allegedly told them the right to demand to be searched in the presence of either the Gazetted Officer or Magistrate by issuing notice independently to each of them. While the detecting officer waited for Adoor Tahazildar, A4 and A5 allegedly came to the room. A4 had carried a shoulder bag when he entered the room. All of them were searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer. Thereupon, the detecting officer seized 1.830 grams and 2.640 grams of MDMA contained in two packets that were kept in the left pocket of jeans pants worn by 1st accused. 151.490 grams of MDMA contained in a plastic cover kept in a shoulder bag allegedly carried by the 4th accused was also seized, and all contraband was sealed. In due course, the contraband seized was produced before the concerned court, sampling was done, and the same was sent for chemical analysis in violation of rules and guidelines.