ABU TAHIR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the 6th accused in Crime No.1472/2021 of Angamali Police Station, Ernakulam District alleging commission of offences under Ss. 8 (c), 20 (b), (ii) (C), 27A, 29 and 31 (1) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'NDPS Act' for short).

(2.) The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner entered into a conspiracy with the other accused in the case and had engaged in the purchase and transportation of ganja from the State of Andhra Pradesh with the intention of selling it in the State of Kerala. A total of 225.38 Kgs of dry ganja was found in the possession of accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 while they were engaged in transporting the same in two different cars from Andhra Pradesh to Kerala. The specific allegation against the petitioner is that he had financial transactions with the other accused and he had financed the purchase and transportation of ganja from Andhra Pradesh with the intention of selling it in the State of Kerala.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the details of financial transactions in which the petitioner was involved would show that apart from normal transactions between the petitioner and some among the other accused (who were on friendly terms with the petitioner) there is nothing in the pattern or the number of transactions to indicate that the petitioner had financed the purchase of ganja from Andhra Pradesh. It is also pointed out that there is no transaction whatsoever between the petitioner and the 7th accused who is a native of Andhra Pradesh and alleged to be the supplier of the contraband. It is submitted that there is nothing in the call data records to suggest that the petitioner had ever contacted the 7th accused. It is also submitted that large number of calls allegedly made by the petitioner were from mobile number 9633364847. It is submitted that the said telephone number is registered in the name of the 5th accused and is in the possession of his wife. It is submitted that since there are no materials to connect the petitioner with the offence the provisions of Sec. 37 of the NDPS Act may not be a bar to grant bail to the petitioner and that even if the provisions of Sec. 37 were to apply, the delay in the commencement of trial even after submission of the chargesheet, is a ground to grant bail to the petitioner. The decisions of the Supreme Court in Chitta Biswas @ Subhas v. the State of West Bengal (Crl. Appeal No.245/2020) and in Mahmood Kurdeya v. Narcotics Control Bureau (Crl. Appeal No.1570/2021) are referred, to establish that even in a case where Sec. 37 of the NDPS Act is attracted the Supreme Court has granted bail on account of the fact that there is considerable delay in the commencement of trial.