BAIL APPL. NO. 4610 OF 2025 1 2025:KER:29710 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 17TH CHAITHRA, 1947 BAIL APPL. NO. 4610 OF 2025 CRIME NO.1895/2023 OF Udayamperoor Police Station, Ernakulam AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN Bail Appl. NO.891 OF 2024 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA PETITIONER/S: SUJITHLAL E.U AGED 23 YEARS S/O. SURESH, SOORAJ BHAVAN, PASHUKOTTUKONAM, VAZHARTHALAKKARA, AMARAVILA (P.O), NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT., PIN - 695122 BY ADV NIREESH MATHEW RESPONDENT/S: STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI., PIN - 682031 THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: BAIL APPL. NO. 4610 OF 2025 2 2025:KER:29710 P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J –------------------------------------- B.A. No.4610 of 2025 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of April, 2025 O R D E R The petitioner is an accused in Crime No. 1895/2023 of Udayamperoor Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Secs. 22(c) & 22(b)(ii)A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'NDPS Act'). 2. The prosecution case is that the petitioner and another purchased 10 LSD stamps weighing 0.110 grams and 71 grams of dried Ganja with the intention of making profit by selling them. On 30.12.2023 at 5.30 pm, the accused transported 10 LSD stamps weighing 0.110 grams and 71 grams of dried Ganja in a car bearing number KL 01 CW 7003. Therefore, it is alleged that the accused committed BAIL APPL. NO. 4610 OF 2025 3 2025:KER:29710 the offences. The petitioner is in custody from 30.12.2023. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public prosecutor. 4. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in custody for about 1 year 3 months and 10 days. It is also submitted by the counsel that the mother of the petitioner needs a knee replacement surgery. There is nobody to look after the mother. The petitioner approached the trial court with an application for interim bail. The same was rejected without any sufficient reason. It is submitted that now, the surgery is rescheduled to 09.04.2025. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide any conditions, if this Court grants him bail. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. The allegation against the petitioner is very serious. 5. The allegation is that the petitioner is found in possession of commercial quantity of LSD stamps. Therefore, Sec. 37 of the NDPS Act is attracted. Therefore, I BAIL APPL. NO. 4610 OF 2025 4 2025:KER:29710 cannot grant absolute bail to the petitioner. 6. According to the petitioner, a knee replacement surgery is necessary to the mother of the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner seeks interim bail. It is also submitted that the petitioner approached the trial court and the same is rejected. Annexure-2 is the order. It will be better to extract the relevant portion of Annexure-2 order. “As I have already stated, the earlier bail application filed by the petitioner seeking regular bail was dismissed on 12.02.2025. Now, the petitioner is seeking interim bail for 30 days to serve as a bystander while his mother undergoes knee replacement surgery. The reason that the petitioner wants to serve as a bystander for his mother during her surgery is not a sufficient ground to grant interim bail to the petitioner, considering the grievous nature of the accusation against him. Hence, it is held that the petition is liable to be dismissed.” 7. It is true that the allegation against the petitioner is serious. But, when there is a prayer for interim bail with genuine reasons, the court below ought to have considered the same with humanitarian consideration. BAIL APPL. NO. 4610 OF 2025 5 2025:KER:29710 Therefore, if an application for interim bail is filed with supporting documents, the court can verify the genuineness of the documents produced and thereafter should pass orders in the application, in accordance with law. According to me, the finding in Annexure-2 order is not proper. Therefore, the petitioner can file a fresh bail application for interim bail with supporting documents. If such an application is filed, the court below will consider the same immediately. Therefore, this bail application is disposed of with the following directions 1) The prayer for absolute bail is rejected. 2) The petitioner is free to file an application for interim bail and if such an application is filed with supporting documents, the court below will consider the same immediately. Sd/- P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE SKS