Allowed

Allabakshi Alias Allabaksh S/O Khader Sab v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC4 Feb 2021CRL.P/100190/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the criminal petition seeking bail for the petitioner/accused No.5 in a trial pending under the NDPS Act. After noting that no drug was recovered from the petitioner and investigation was pending, the court imposed stringent conditions including execution of bond, attendance before IO, and prohibition of related offenses before granting bail.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal petition is allowed. The trial Court is directed to release the petitioner/accused No.5 on bail subject to a bond of Rs. 1 lakh with two sureties and conditions including attending the IO

Allabakshi Alias Allabaksh S/O Khader Sab Vs the State of… — Narcotics (NDPS) | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 4^th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100190/2021

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

ALLABAKSHI ALIAS ALLABAKSH S/O KHADER SAB age. 27 YEARS, OCC. JEANS PANT TAILOR R/O.10TH WARD, NEAR KANEKAL BUS STAND MASZID STREET, RANI THOTA, BALLARI DIST. 583 201

¶8

.. PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. J. BASAVARAJ, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA (BY HOSPET TOWN PS) REPRESENTED BY HIGH COURT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENCH DHARWAD 580 008

¶12

.. RESPONDENT

¶13

(BY SMT. SEEMA SHIVA NAIK, HCGP)

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.5 ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.94/2020 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED PRL. DIST. AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BALLARI (REGISTERED IN HOSPET TOWN POLICE STATION, HOSAPETE, BALLARI DIST.) FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 20(B)(II)(B) OF NDPS ACT PENDING

¶15

¶16

INVESTIGATION AND TRIAL OF THE CASE INSOFAR AS PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.5 IS CONCERNED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

¶17

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.5 under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for granting regular bail in Crime No.94/2020 registered by the Hospet Town Police for an offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘NDPs Act’, for brevity).

¶20

The case of the prosecution is that on the credible information, the police team apprehended accused Nos.1 and 2 on 14.09.2020 where the accused Nos.1 and 2 were found selling ganja. The same was seized by the police under panchanama. Accused Nos.1 and 2 were found in possession of 1 kg 210 grams of ganja. The police also seized motor bike and also the mobile phones. During the investigation, accused Nos.1 and 2 revealed that they have purchased ganja from accused No.3-Lata @

¶21

¶22

Hemalata, who in turn, on apprehending, named accused Nos.4 to 6 from whom she is said to have purchased ganja. Therefore, the Police arrested the present petitioner/accused No.5 on 29.11.2020 and he was taken into custody. The petitioner approached the learned Sessions Judge for grant of bail which came to be rejected. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is innocent of the offence alleged. He has been falsely implicated. Learned counsel further contended that, based on the voluntary statement of accused No.3, the petitioner has been arrested and nothing has been recovered from the petitioner. He is permanent resident and he is a jeans pant tailor at Ballari. He is ready to abide by any conditions. Hence, prayed for granting bail.

¶24

Per Contra, learned High Court Government Pleader strenuously objected to the bail petition and prayed for rejection of the bail petition.

¶25

Upon considering the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondent-State and on perusal of the records, no doubt, accused

¶26

¶27

Nos.1 and 2 were arrested by the police on 14.09.2020 and seized 1kg 210 grams ganja, a motor bike and mobile phone. The investigation reveals that both accused Nos.1 and 2 have purchased ganja from accused No.3, thereafter accused No.3 was arrested by the police, on body warrant, who in turn named accused Nos.4 to 6 stating that she has purchased ganja from them. Accordingly, the police arrested the petitioner on 29.11.2020. However, no ganja has been recovered from the petitioner. Except the voluntary statement of accused No.3, nothing is available in order to connect the petitioner with the crime. At this stage, investigation is still pending. The main accused i.e. accused nos.1 and 2 are already granted bail by the trial Court. The quantity of ganja seized is little more than the small quantity. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, by imposing stringent conditions, if the petitioner is granted bail, no prejudice would be caused to the prosecution case.

¶28

6. Accordingly, I pass the following order:

¶29

The Criminal petition is allowed. The trial Court is directed to release the petitioner/accused No.5 on bail in Crime No.94/2020

¶30

¶31

registered by the Hospet Town Police for an offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, subject to the following conditions:

¶32

i. The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of `1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the trial court.

¶33

ii. The petitioner shall not hamper the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly.

¶34

iii. The petitioner shall not indulge in similar offence.

¶35

iv. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer and mark his attendance between 10.00 am and 4.00 pm once in a week i.e. on every Monday for a period of three months or till filing of the charge sheet whichever is later.

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

JUDGE

¶38

kmv

Allabakshi Alias Allabaksh S/O Khader Sab v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Allabakshi Alias Allabaksh S/O Khader Sab v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Basappa Mahadevappa Kadlikoppa Vs the State of Karnataka

Sanni S/O Venkataranagayya Mothukuri @ Mothukuri Vs the State of Karnataka

Nana Kale S/O. Bhaskar Kale Vs the State of Karnataka

Suresh S/O. Vittal Biradar Patil Vs the State of Karnataka

Annappa S/O Yallappa Kagi Vs State of Karnataka

Shri. Shivshankar S/O Satyappa Dabbu Vs the State of Karnataka