Allowed

Ramanna @ Ramachandraiah v. State by Excise Police

Karnataka HC27 Jul 2021CRL.P/1470/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, accused No. 3, in an NDPS case where he was implicated solely based on the statement of another accused. The petitioner was directed to cooperate with the investigation and abide by conditions regarding bond, appearance, and non-interference with witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; petitioner enlarged on bail subject to bond of Rs. 2 lakhs, appearance before IO within 15 days, and conditions against tampering/offences.

Ramanna @ Ramachandraiah Vs State by Excise Police — Narcotics (NDPS) | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF JULY, 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G.UMA

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1470 OF 2021

¶6

BETWEEN :

¶7

RAMANNA @ RAMACHANDRAIAH AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS S/O ERAKALLAIAH DASANAKATTE GOLLARAHATTI VILLAGE BALUVANERALU POST HONNAVALLI HOBLI TIPTUR TALUK

¶8

TUMAKURU DISTRICT – 572 101

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI.VINAYA KEERTHY M., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND :

¶12

STATE BY EXCISE POLICE TIPTUR, TUMAKURU DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BENGALURU – 560 001

¶13

… RESPONDENT (BY SRI.K.S. ABHIJITH, HCGP)

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 OF CR.P.C PRAYING THIS COURT TO

¶15

¶16

ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CRIME NO.29/2019-2020 (SPL.NO. 149/2020) OF RESPONDENT EXCISE POLICE, TIPTUR FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 20(ii)(B), 8(c) OF NDPS ACT.

¶17

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

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The petitioner-accused No.3 is before this Court seeking grant of anticipatory bail in Crime No.29/2019-20 of Tiptur Sub-Division Excise Police Station registered for the offence punishable under Section 20(ii)(B),8(c) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant Vijaykumar K.T.

¶20

Brief facts of the prosecution case is that 15.430 kgs of ganja was seized from the possession of accused No.1. He had revealed the name of the present petitioner that he is the intending purchaser

¶21

¶22

of the contraband. On the basis of the said contention of accused No.1, the present petitioner is arraigned as accused No.3. Accordingly, the police registered the case and took up investigation.

¶23

Heard Sri. Vinaya Keerthy M, learned

¶24

Counsel for the petitioner and Sri. K.S. Abhijith, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State. Perused the materials placed on record.

¶25

Learned Counsel for the petitioner

¶26

submitted that the petitioner is arrayed as accused No.3. There is absolutely no basis to implicate the present petitioner as one of the accused. Even though

¶27

the house of the petitioner was searched, nothing incriminating was seized from the house. Only on the basis of the statement said to be given by accused No.1, the present petitioner has been falsely

¶28

¶29

implicated. There is no prima facie material available on record, even though the charge sheet has already been filed. The petitioner is innocent and law abiding citizen. He has not committed any offence as alleged. He has been falsely implicated in the matter without any basis. The petitioner is the permanent resident of the address mentioned in the cause title of the petition and he is ready and willing to abide by any of the conditions that would be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays to allow the petition in the interest of justice.

¶30

Per contra, learned High Court Government

¶31

Pleader opposing the petition submitted that serious allegations are made against the petitioner for having committed the offence. Learned counsel submits that 15.430 kgs of ganja was seized from the custody of accused No.1 and he revealed the name of the present petitioner as intending purchaser. The

¶32

¶33

petitioner is a habitual offender and another case is registered against him for having committed similar offence. The petitioner never co-operated with the Investigation Officers. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail. If the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail, he may never turn up before the Investigating Officer and he may abscond or may commit similar offences or even threaten or tamper the prosecution witnesses. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the petition.

¶34

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

¶35

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

¶36

¶37

My answer to the above point is in the

¶38

‘Affirmative’ for the following:

¶39

R E A S O N S

¶40

It is seen that on the basis of the

¶41

statement said to have been given by accused No.1, the present petitioner is arraigned as one of the accused. Admittedly, charge sheet has been already filed after having searched the house of the petitioner. Admittedly, the petitioner is not required for interrogation. Under such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the petitioner-accused No.3 may be granted 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 may tamper or threaten the prosecution witnesses.

¶42

¶43

8. Accordingly, I answer the above point in

¶44

the affirmative and proceed to pass the following:

¶45

ORDER

¶46

The petition is allowed.

¶47

The petitioner-accused No.3 is ordered to be

¶48

enlarged on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.29/2019-20 of Tiptur Sub-Division Excise Police Station.

¶49

The petitioner-accused No.3 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 the following conditions:-

¶50

a. The petitioner-accused No.3 shall furnish the bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/(Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two sureties for the likesum

¶51

¶52

to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer;

¶53

b. The petitioner shall not commit similar offences;

¶54

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

¶55

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

¶56

Sd/JUDGE

¶57

Ramanna @ Ramachandraiah v. State by Excise Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramanna @ Ramachandraiah v. State by Excise Police

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

Basavaraju S Hosamani Vs State of Karnataka

Kalpana Vs State of Karnataka

Naveen Kumar S M Vs State of Karnataka by

Mr Shivakumar Vs State of Karnataka

Mohammed Ali Akbar @ Ali Umar Vs State of Karnataka

Mr Pradeepa Vs the State of Karnataka