The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a criminal petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for regular bail in an NDPS case. The court held that given the quantity of narcotics seized and the ongoing investigation with other accused to be arrested, the petitioner was not entitled to bail.
Petition praying for regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF MARCH, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1215 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
VISHRUTH N. RAJ S/O. NATARAJ, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, RESIDING AT #25, 17TH MAIN ROAD, 14TH CROSS, R.N. SIT COLLEGE, NEAR DWARAKA NAGAR, CHANNASANDRA, BANGALORE – 560 098.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI S.G. LOKESH, ADV.)
AND:
STATE BY TILAK NAGAR P.S., REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, BANGALORE, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE – 560 001.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, H.C.G.P.)
2
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF THE CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.6 OF 2021 OF THILAKNAGAR POLICE STATION, BENGALURU, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 20(B) AND 21(b) (c) OF THE NDPS ACT.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R
This petition is filed by accused No.1 under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (for short, ‘the Cr.P.C.’) for granting regular bail in Crime No.6 of 2021 registered by Thilaknagar Police Station, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 20(B) and 21(b)(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, ‘the NDPS Act’).
3
at about 12:30 p.m., Sub-Inspector of Police, attached to Thilaknagar Police Station received credible information that the petitioner will come to Big Bazaar Mall situate at 9th Block Jayanagar to sell ganja to the public. Upon receipt of the complaint, the Police registered a case and filed F.I.R. He along with panchas went to the spot at 4:30 p.m. and were waiting. At about 5:25 p.m., the petitioner came to the spot and the Police apprehended him and on search, they have seized 1.203 kgs of ganja oil (hashish oil) from him and drew panchanama in the presence of panch witnesses. The petitioner also revealed that it was purchased from Guntur and again, when the Police searched his house, they recovered 3 kgs of ganja. After arrest of the petitioner, he has been remanded to judicial custody. The petitioner approached the Special
4
Court for granting bail, which came to be rejected. Hence, this petition.
he has been falsely implicated. The story of the prosecution cannot be believable as Big Bazaar Mall situate in 9th Block Jayanagar is busiest area, that too, during broad daylight, there is no chance of selling ganja to the public. Further, the complainant registered a case and himself investigated the case, which is bad in law. The petitioner is a student pursuing Chartered Accountant. The petitioner is in custody from 20-1-2021 and is ready to abide by any of the conditions to be imposed by the Court. Hence, he prayed for allowing the petition.
5
Pleader has objected the bail petition and contended that on apprehension of the petitioner, the Police have seized 1.203 kgs of ganja oil and again, in his house, they have seized 3 kgs of ganja. Investigation is still under progress and another accused is yet to be arrested. Hence, she prayed for rejecting the petition.
6
oil from one Praveen alias Mummy, a resident of Guntur, by paying huge amount. Though learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Big Bazaar Mall situate in 9th Block Jayanagar is busiest area, that too, during broad daylight, there is no chance of selling ganja to the public, but the material witnesses secured by the Police shows the involvement of the petitioner. Hence, the said submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not sustainable. This aspect has to be considered by the Court during trial only at the time of final hearing of the case. Technicality cannot be a ground to grant bail to the petitioner. Investigation is still under progress and other accused person is yet to be arrested. If bail is granted, there is every possibility of the petitioner absconding and tampering with the prosecution witnesses is not ruled out. Pending consideration, I am of the
7
opinion that the petitioner is not entitled for bail. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed .
Sd/JUDGE
kvk
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail in an NDPS offence where substantial quantities of ganja were seized from his person and home.
Whether the possibility of absconding and tampering with witnesses justifies rejecting the bail application despite availability of material witnesses.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Vishruth N. Raj
State
K. Natarajan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
