Dismissed

Kalappa S/O Dodda Eranna v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC10 Feb 2021CRL.P/100235/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court dismissed a petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. filed by an agriculturist accused of cultivating 54 ganja plants (31.700 kgs) exceeding commercial limits. The court rejected the defense of automatic plant growth.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail petition dismissed; petitioner allowed to surrender for regular bail.

Kalappa S/O Dodda Eranna Vs State of Karnataka — Narcotics (NDPS) | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2021 BEFORE

¶3

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100235/2021

¶4

BETWEEN:

¶5

KALAPPA S/O DODDA ERANNA AGE 61 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O BAIRAGAMADINNE VILLAGE, KOTTALACHINTA, SIRUGUPPA TALUK, BALLARI DISTRICT.

¶6

...PETITIONER

¶7

(BY SRI. J BASAVARAJ, ADVOCATE)

¶8

AND:

¶9

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR, EXCISE SUB-DIVISION, SIRUGUPPA P.S., REPRESENTED BY HIGH COURT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENCH DHARWAD.

¶10

…RESPONDENT

¶11

(BY MS. SEEMA SHIVA NAIK, HCGP)

¶12

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 438 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO GRANT ANTICIPATORY BAIL TO THE PETITIONER AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENT POLICE TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CRIME NO.17/2021 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE PRL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BALLARI (REGISTERED IN THE SUB-INSPECTOR OF EXCISE, SIRUGUPPA, BALLARI DIST.,) FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 8(b), 20 (a) (b), (c) (ii) AND 25 OF NDPS ACT.

¶13

¶14

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

¶15

ORDER

¶16

This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in Crime No.17/2021 registered by the Inspector of Excise Department, Siruguppa, Ballari Dist., for the offence punishable under Sections 8(b), 20(a)(b), (c)(ii) and 25 of the NDPS Act.

¶17

The case of the prosecution is that, the complainant one Sri.Shankar Gudadar, Sub-Inspector of Excise, Siruguppa, on the credible information received on 25.10.2020 that the petitioner/accused is growing ganja illegally in the land bearing Sy.No.37/b-2 of Halumurani village, immediately he obtained search warrant from the Tahasildar, Siruguppa and secured the panchas and Gazetted Officers and went to the land of the accused at about 12.30 pm and found there were 54 ganja plants grown in between the cotton crops weighing 31.700 kgs and seized the same in the presence of panchas under seizure mahazer. After registering the case, the respondent Police are trying to arrest this

¶18

¶19

petitioner. Hence the petitioner approached the Sessions Judge for grant of anticipatory bail, which came to be rejected on 30.12.2020. Hence he is before this Court.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is innocent of the alleged offences. He had no knowledge about the granja plants ground in the field. The land is situated 3 kms away from his village. There are chances of growing of plants automatically. The petitioner is aged about 61 years and he is the permanent resident of the village. His family members are in Bengaluru and he is ready to abide by any conditions imposed by this Court. The petitioner is an agriculturist and there are no other cases registered against him. Hence he prayed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶21

Per contra, learned HCGP objected to the bail petition and contended that there were 54 plants of ganja plants grown in the field of the petitioner weighing 31.700 kgs which is more than commercial quantity. Investigation is still pending and the petitioner is required for custodial interrogation and hence prayed for rejection of the petition.

¶22

¶23

Upon considering the arguments and perusal of the records, it goes to show that, on credible information received on 23.10.2020 about growing of ganja plants in the field of the petitioner, after obtaining search warrant from the Tahasildar, Suruguppa and after securing the panchas by issuing notice, the Excise Inspector proceeded to the land of the accused at Survey No.37/b-2 and found that 54 ganja plants were grown in between cotton plants. They seized the plants weighing 31.700 kgs with the help of panchas. They have also taken sample and sent to FSL examination. The quantity of ganja seized is more than commercial quantity. It cannot be said that ganja plants were automatically grown in the field without the knowledge of the petitioner. The offence alleged is under the NDPS Act. Therefore, it is not a case for grant of anticipatory bail. The investigation is still pending. Therefore, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

¶24

Accordingly, the petition is dismissed . However, the petitioner is at liberty to surrender and approach the trial Court for grant of regular bail.

¶25

Sd/JUDGE

¶26

gab

Kalappa S/O Dodda Eranna v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kalappa S/O Dodda Eranna v. 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

Fayaz @ Fhayu S/O. Abdul Sab Tailar Vs State of Karnataka

Ashok S/O. Late Sathyavanta Vs the State of Karnataka

Santosh S/O Vittal Badiger Vs State of Karnataka

Ganesh S/O Anant Acharya Vs the State of Karnataka

Kesarimal S/O. Lakmaji Jain Vs Zakirahameds/O. Davalsab Kanavi

Balchandra Madev Karikantra Vs Uday Vaman Nayak