Dismissed

Rajendra Singh S/O Lal Singh v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC5 Feb 2021CRL.P/100196/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court, Dharwad Bench dismissed a criminal bail petition filed by a lorry driver accused of smuggling opium (850g). The Court held that the quantity exceeded the small limit, the narcotics were found beneath the driver's seat, and the investigation was pending risks of absconding precluded bail under Section 439 CrPC.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petition under Section 439 CrPC for enlargement on bail is dismissed.

Rajendra Singh S/O Lal Singh Vs the State of Karnataka — Narcotics (NDPS) | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 5^th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100196/2021

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

RAJENDRA SINGH S/O LAL SINGH AGE. 29 YEARS, OCC. DRIVER, R/O. WARD NO.13, DOOR NO.34, DIRBA, SANGOOR, PUNJAB STATE-148001

¶8

.. PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. B. ANWAR BASHA, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA (THROUGH INSPECTOR OF EXCISE EXCISE SUB-DIVISION KUDLIGI) R/BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD-580001

¶12

.. RESPONDENT

¶13

(BY SMT. SEEMA SHIVA NAIK, HCGP)

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PRAYING TO ALLOW THE PETITION AND ENLARGE THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 ON BAIL IN CR.NO.10/2020 REGISTERED IN EXCISE SUB DIVISION KUDLIGI RANGE, BALLARI, FOR THE OFFENCE UNDER SECTIONs 15, 15(B) 22, 28, 29 AND 8(C) OF NARCOTIC DRUGS AND PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES ACT,

¶15

¶16

1985, PENDING INVESTIGATION OF THE CASE 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.1 under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for granting regular bail in Crime No.10/2020 registered by the Kudligi Range Police Station, Hosapete Sub-Division, Ballari, for the offence punishable under Sections 15, 15(b) 22, 28, 29 and 8(c) 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 09.10.2020, the complainant-Excise Sub-Inspector II, Kudligi Range, received a credible information at 12.45 pm, telephonically, that a lorry bearing registration No.PB13BD 9451 was transporting narcotic drugs illegally and coming on NH-50 Hosapete-Chitradruga road. Immediately, he along with his staff went and waited near Hosapete Chitradurga road opposite Virupapur Fly over about 300 meters on Chitradurga-NH-50 and they found the said lorry at 3.00 pm. They

¶21

¶22

intercepted the lorry and on searching the lorry, a packet was found in the cabin beneath the driver’s seat and on opening it was found that it is was opium powder. Then immediately, he secured the panchas and the Gazetted Officers, seized the opium which weighed 850 grams. He also searched the lorry and found 1344 cases of apple being carried in the lorry. Then he has taken the accused to custody and registered a case. He was produced before the Court and remanded to judicial custody. The petitioner approached the 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 and the petitioner is the driver and he was transporting the apple from Punjab to Bengaluru. He was not aware of the contraband article kept in the lorry. The opium seized is 850 grams, which is less than the commercial quantity and further contended that the investigation is almost completed. The raiding party have not followed the procedure prescribed under the NDPS Act. Hence, prayed for granting bail.

¶24

¶25

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader for

¶26

the respondent-State objected to the bail petition and contended that the offence committed by the petitioner is heinous one punishable under the NDPS Act. The petitioner was caught redhanded while transporting the opium in his lorry which was kept beneath the driver’s seat. Investigation is still pending. The petitioner is from Punjab State. If the petitioner is granted bail, he may abscond from the case and tampering with the prosecution witnesses is not ruled out. He further contended that if there are any omission or lapses, the same has to be considered during trial and not at this stage. Therefore, prayed for dismissal of the petition.

¶27

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondentState and perused the records. The Excise Sub-Inspector II Kudligi, registered a suo motu case against the accused for the above said offence. It is alleged that on 09.10.2020, on the credible information, he intercepted the lorry bearing registration No.PB13BD 9451 and on search, it was found that a packet was

¶28

¶29

kept beneath the seat of the driver, which was found to be opium powder weighing 850 grams. Immediately, he secured the panchas and Gazetted Officer and seized the same under panchanama. Thereafter, the accused was taken to the police station and registered a case.

¶30

Admittedly, the lorry was loaded with 1344 cases of apple which was being transported from Punjab to Bengaluru. The investigation is still pending and the quantity of opium seized weighed 850 grams i.e. more than the small quantity and less than

¶31

the commercial quantity and the punishment prescribed is imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years and with fine which may extend to one lakh rupees. The accused did not produce any licence or permit for possessing or transporting the contraband article. The accused is from Punjab State. The petitioner is the driver of the lorry and opium was found below the driver’s seat. Therefore, it cannot be said that the accused had no knowledge or was not conscious of possessing and transporting the opium. Investigation is still pending. The petitioner is from Punjab State and if the petitioner is granted bail, the possibility of the

¶32

¶33

petitioner absconding and tampering the prosecution witnesses cannot be ruled out. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to exercise the power under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.

¶34

Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed.

¶35

Sd/JUDGE

¶36

kmv

Rajendra Singh S/O Lal Singh v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra Singh S/O Lal Singh 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

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

Annappa S/O Yallappa Kagi Vs State of Karnataka

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

Satish S/O Gurunath Alias Gurappa Chalawadi Vs the State of Karnataka

Harapal Singh S/O Prem Singh Vs the State of Karnataka

D. Prabhakaran S/O. Dayalan Vs State of Karnataka