Allowed

Pramodkumar S/O Ganeshmal Prajapathi v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC22 Jan 2021CRL.P/101612/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a Criminal Petition filed under Section 439 CrPC read with Section 37 NDPS Act, granting bail to the accused charged with possession and sale of opium. The court imposed stringent conditions including a bond of Rs. 50,000, regular police reporting, and restriction on leaving jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner/accused released on bail subject to personal bond of Rs. 50,000, prohibition of further offences, non-interference with witnesses, no exit without permission, and monthly police reporting.

Pramodkumar S/O Ganeshmal Prajapathi Vs the State of… — Narcotics (NDPS) | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 22^nd DAY OF JANUARY 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.101612/2020

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

PRAMODKUMAR S/O GANESHMAL PRAJAPATHI AGE 37 YEARS, OCC: TEA SELLER CHAIWALA, R/O H.NO.54, C/O J.V. GADGINMATH, BADIGER ONI, VEERAPUR ONI, HUBBALLI.

¶8

.. PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. VASANT G. HOLEYANNAVAR, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPT BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD, P.I. HUBBALLI-DHARWAD E AND N.P.S. HUBBALLI.

¶12

.. RESPONDENT

¶13

(BY SRI RAMESH B.CHIGARI, HCGP)

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF THE CR.P.C. SEEKING TO RELEASE THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 ON BAIL IN E AND N POLICE STATION, HUBBALLI IN E AND N POLICE STATION CRIME NO.11/2020 FOR THE OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 17(B) AND SECTION 18(B) OF THE NDPS ACT WHICH IS PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRL. DIST AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DHARWAD, BY ALLOWING THIS PETITION.

¶15

¶16

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

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

This petition by the petitioner/accused No.1 is filed under

¶19

Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, read with Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘NDPS Act’, for brevity) registered by the Hubli-Dharwad E & N Police Station Crime No.11/2020 for the offence punishable under Sections 17(b) and 18(b) of NDPS Act.

¶20

The case of the prosecution is that, the Police Inspector of E and N Crime P.S., Hubballi-Dharwad, got credible information, that on 02.11.2020 at about 2.00 pm that a person was selling contraband article opium to the public in tea shop at Ullagaddi Oni, Hubballi. After recording the information in the Station Diary and obtaining permission from the Higher Authorities, securing panchas and other witnesses, the police visited the place of incident where the petitioner was found selling tea. They apprehended the petitioner at 3.50 pm. On enquiry, he has disclosed his name and

¶21

¶22

address and they also gave the option to the accused for searching him before the Gazetted Officer or the Magistrate and at the request of the accused, they approached the Gazetted Rank Officer and on search, he was found in possession of two packets of opium containing 25 grams each. Thereafter, they seized the same and arrested the accused and later he was produced before the learned Sessions Spl.Judge and in turn the petitioner was remanded to judicial custody. The petitioner approached the learned Sessions Judge for granting bail which came to be rejected. Hence, the petitioner/accused No.1 is before this Court.

¶23

Sri. Vasant G. Holeyannavar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is innocent of the offence alleged. He has been falsely implicated in the case. The petitioner is in custody for a period of two and a half months. Investigation is completed and the police have already filed charge sheet. The quantity of the seized contraband article is less than the commercial quantity and more than the minimum quantity. Accused No.2, who is the main accused, is already arrested by the police and is in judicial custody and therefore keeping the petitioner in

¶24

¶25

judicial custody will not serve any purpose. Hence, he prayed for granting bail.

¶26

Per contra, Sri. Ramesh B. Chigari, learned High Court Government Pleader objected to the bail petition and contended that the petitioner/accused No.1 was found selling opium and was caught red-handed by the police and recovered opium in the presence of panchas by following all the procedures prescribed under the NDPS Act. If the petitioner is granted bail, there is every likelihood of the petitioner committing similar offence and also absconding from the trial is not ruled out. Hence, he prayed to reject the petition.

¶27

Upon hearing the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for both sides and on perusal of the records, it goes to show that the police apprehended the petitioner and recovered 25 grams of opium in two packets each and on voluntary statement, he has stated that accused No.2 had supplied opium to him for selling the same to the public and accused No.2 used to pay him Rs.500/- either in cash or through Google Pay account. Further, it is revealed from the documents that, subsequently during the

¶28

¶29

investigation, the police arrested accused No.2 also and he is in judicial custody.

¶30

It is not in dispute that the police have already completed investigation and filed charge sheet on 06.01.2021 itself. The alleged offence, though non-bailable, is punishable with imprisonment for ten years and also fine, the quantity of opium seized is double the small quantity and less than the commercial quantity. The petitioner is said to be permanent resident of Badiger Oni, Hubballi and he was selling tea at Ullagaddi Oni. At this stage, it cannot be said that the petitioner is guilty of the offence alleged which is punishable with imprisonment for ten years and also fine.

¶31

By considering the charge-sheet field by the police, the co-accused, who is the main accused, has already been arrested and keeping the petitioner in jail will not serve any purpose. Therefore, by imposing stringent conditions, if the petitioner is granted bail, no prejudice would be caused to the prosecution case.

¶32

Accordingly, I pass the following order:

¶33

¶34

The Criminal Petition is allowed. The learned Sessions and Special Judge is directed to release the petitioner/accused No.1 on bail in the Hubli-Dharwad E & N Police Station Crime No.11/2020 for the offence punishable under Sections 17(b) and 18(b) of NDPS Act, subject to the following conditions:

¶35

i) The petitioner shall execute personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand only) with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Special Court;

¶36

ii) Strictly, the petitioner shall not indulge in committing similar offence;

¶37

iii) The petitioner shall not tamper the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly;

¶38

iv) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without prior permission of the trial Court;

¶39

v) The petitioner shall mark his attendance between 10.00 am and 4.00 pm before the police once in a

¶40

¶41

month on every second day of the calendar month till commencement of the trial.

¶42

vi) If any of the conditions is violated, the prosecution is at liberty to move an application for cancellation of bail.

¶43

Sd/JUDGE

¶44

kmv

Pramodkumar S/O Ganeshmal Prajapathi v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pramodkumar S/O Ganeshmal Prajapathi 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

Devya S/O Chudya Gowda Vs the State of Karnataka by Its

Hanamantha S/O Yankappa Jarakunti Vs the State of Karnataka

Vinay Rajashekharappa Kulkarni Vs Central Bureau of Investigation

Gangya @ Gangadhar Vs the State of Karnataka

Sunil S/O Mallikarjun Murkibhavi Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Amol Prakash Waddar Vs the State of Karnataka