SAFIKKUL MOLLA Vs. STATE REP. BY EXCISE INSPECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who stands arrayed as the sole accused in CC No.1043/2017 in Crime No.9/2017 of Excise Range Office Angamaly for offences punishable under section 20(b (ii) A of NDPS Act ,aggrieved by the order in Crl.M.P.No.899/2017 of JFCM Court, has approached this Court seeking bail on execution of his own bond.

(2.) The petitioner herein was found in possession of 20 grams of ganja on 15/10/2017 at 1.30 p.m. He was arrested and produced in the court on 15/10/2017. The petitioner sought bail on the ground that, he hails from a poor family and has no relatives or friends to stand as sureties. He is financially weak and sought the benefit available to an indigent as contemplated under section 436 (1) of Cr.P.C . The court below refused to accept the request on the ground that, in a similar crime the accused was released on self bond and he failed to appear before the court. The prosecution also opposed the application on the ground that the accused was involved in a serious offence and being a person from outside state, if is released on self bond, there is no likelihood of his appearance in future.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that, the court below went wrong in holding that the petitioner was not entitled for bail and was carried away by extraneous and irrelevant considerations, while declining the bail. Learned counsel relied on the decision reported in Robul Saikh @ Kalu Saikh v. State of Kerala (2016 (1) KHC 734) to contend that, if a person who is detained is an indigent person, and is unable to furnish security, instead of taking bail from such person, Court shall discharge him on execution of a bond without sureties, for his appearance.