Allowed

Shri Husainsab Imran S/O Hasansab Shaikh v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC22 Mar 2021CRL.P/100417/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C., the High Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner accused in an NDPS case. The court held that since co-accused were already on bail, the petitioner is entitled to bail, subject to conditions preventing tampering with witnesses and setting a bond.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on bail in the event of arrest; directed to execute bond of Rs. 2,00,000/- with two sureties and appear before IO within 15 days.

Shri Husainsab Imran S/O Hasansab Shaikh Vs the State of… — Narcotics (NDPS) | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF MARCH 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G.UMA

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100417/2021

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SHRI.HUSAINSAB @ IMRAN S/O HASANSAB SHAIKH, AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O: PATEL NAGARA, DANDELI, UTTARKANNADA-581325.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. VENKATESH M. KHARVI, ADV.)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY DANDELI POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY S.P.P. HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD-580008.

¶13

…..RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI:RAMESH B.CHIGARI, HCGP)

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO ENLARGE THE ACCUSED ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN RELATION TO DANDELI TOWN POLICE STATION IN CRIME NO.82/2020 DATED 16.09.2020 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 8C, 20(b)(ii)(A) OF NARCOTIC DRUGS AND PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES ACT, 1985.

¶16

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The petitioner-accused No.3 is before this Court seeking grant of anticipatory bail in Crime No.82/2020 of Dandeli Town Police Station, initially registered for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(A) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the NDPS Act’ for the sake of brevity), on the basis of first information lodged by the informant-Yallappa, the PSI of Dandeli Town Police Station, against accused Nos.1 and 2.

¶20

Brief facts of the case are that, the informant stated that on 16.09.2020 at about 9.00 a.m., while he was on duty at Dandeli Town Police Station, he received credible information regarding illegal possession and transportation of Ganja, without any pass or permit by two persons. Immediately, he informed this fact to his Higher Officers and as per their directions, he proceeded to the spot along with his staff and two panchas. The informant reached near the cross at Reserve Forest and from there, they proceeded by

¶21

¶22

walk inside the forest. They found accused Nos.1 and 2 each with a bag. They were collecting money from 4 to 5 persons and were giving them something. The informant with the help of his staff, held raid in the presence of panchas. It is found that accused Nos.1 and 2 were in possession of Ganja and they were selling the same to the general public without having any pass or permit. Accused Nos.1 and 2 were having separate plastic bags. On search, it was found that accused No.1 was possessing 854 grams of contraband worth Rs.18,000/- and he was having cash of Rs.600/-. Similarly, accused No.2 was in possession of 1088 grams of contraband worth Rs.20,000/- and cash of Rs.900/-. All these materials were seized at the spot and the seizure mahazar was drawn. It is stated that other accused persons who were at the spot, ran away from the scene of occurrence. Thus, accused Nos.1 and 2 have committed the offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(A) of the NDPS Act. Therefore, the informant requested the police to register the case and to initiate legal action against the accused. Accordingly, the police registered the case and took up investigation.

¶23

¶24

3. Heard Sri.Venkatesh M.Kharvi, learned Counsel

¶25

for the petitioner and Sri.Ramesh B Chigari, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State. Perused the materials on record.

¶26

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the present petitioner is arraigned as accused No.3 on the basis of so-called statement given by accused Nos.1 and 2. The petitioner is not named in the FIR. Accused Nos.1 and 2 are already enlarged on bail. There is absolutely no material to connect the present petitioner to the offences in question. He is not required for custodial interrogation. He is the permanent resident of the address mentioned in the cause title to the petition. He is ready and willing to abide by any of the conditions that would be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays for allowing the petition in the interest of justice.

¶27

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader opposing the petition submitted that serious allegations are made against the petitioner for having committed the offences. During investigation, it is found that accused No.3 i.e., the present petitioner is also involved in

¶28

¶29

commission of the offence along with accused Nos.1 and 2. Under such circumstances, it cannot be said that the present petitioner is falsely implicated in the matter. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the petition.

¶30

In view of the rival contentions urged by learned counsel for both the parties, the point that arises for my consideration is:

¶31

“Whether the petitioner is entitled for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.?”

¶32

My answer to the above point is in ‘Affirmative’ for the following:

¶33

REASONS

¶34

It is stated that accused Nos.1 and 2 were found in possession of the contraband without any pass or permit. It is stated that on the basis of the voluntary statement given by accused Nos.1 and 2, the present petitioner is arraigned as accused No.3. Initially he was not named in the FIR. However, it is stated that accused Nos.1 and 2 are already enlarged on bail subject to conditions. Under such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the present petitioner

¶35

¶36

is entitled for grant of anticipatory bail, subject to conditions, which will take care of the apprehension expressed by the learned High Court Government Pleader that the petitioner may abscond or tamper or threaten the prosecution witnesses.

¶37

In view of the above, I answer the point in the Affirmative and proceed to pass the following:

¶38

ORDER

¶39

The petition is allowed.

¶40

The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.82/2020 of Dandeli town Police Station.

¶41

The petitioner is directed to appear before the Investigating Officer within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order and on his appearance, the Investigating Officer shall enlarge him on bail subject to following conditions:-

¶42

a. The petitioner shall furnish the bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer;

¶43

¶44

b. The petitioner shall not commit similar offences;

¶45

c. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required; and

¶46

d. The petitioner shall not threaten or tamper the prosecution witnesses.

¶47

Sd/JUDGE

¶48

KGK

Shri Husainsab Imran S/O Hasansab Shaikh v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Husainsab Imran S/O Hasansab Shaikh 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

Niyajbasha S/O. Abdul Rahaman Vs the State of Karnataka

Honnappa S/O. Hanamantappa Koravar Vs State of Karnataka

V.M. Muniswami S/O. Hanumappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.Annappa Kallappa Nayar Vs Sri.Iranna Kallappa Galibi

Shri.Maheshkumar S/O Achayya Kastala Vs the State of Karnataka

Sunil S/O Tippanna Kadannavar Vs the State of Karnataka