The High Court of Karnataka dismissed the bail petition of an accused in an NDPS case. The court held that WhatsApp messages and call records demonstrated the petitioner's involvement in drug peddling, rejecting the ground of parity relied upon regarding the bail granted to co-accused No.4.
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 5TH DAY OF MARCH, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1652 OF 2021
BETWEEN
GARELD PRAVEEN KUMAR S/O. IRUTHAYA RAJAN, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.200/1 A, 3RD MAIN, 1ST CROSS, BHUVANESHWARI NAGAR, C.V. RAMAN NAGAR POST, BENGALURU – 560 093.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI LATHIF B., ADVOCATE)
AND
UNION OF INDIA NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU, BANGALORE ZONAL UNIT, THROUGH THEIR INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, BENGALURU – 560 001.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI MADHUKAR DESHPANCE, SPL.COUNSEL FOR ACB)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 22, 27A, 28 AND 29 OF NDPS ACT IN NCB F.NO.48/1/14/2020/BZU, REGISTERED BY NCB, BENGALURU ZONAL UNIT, BENGALURU.
2
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.9 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., for granting bail in NCB.F.No.48/1/14/2020/BZU registered by the NCB, Bangalore Zonal Unit for the offences punishable under Sections 22, 27A, 28 and 29 of NDPS Act. During the investigation and after the arrest of this petitioner, the alleged offences were also punishable under Sections 22, 27, 29 and 8(c) of the NDPS Act.
3
petitioner on 28.01.2021. On 27.01.2021, they issued notice to the petitioner and after the investigation, arrested this petitioner and he has been remanded to the judicial custody. He has approached the Sessions Court for grant of bail which came to be rejected. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.
the possession of the petitioner. Even after issuance of notice and after arrest of the petitioner, the police have not obtained any bills except recovering the sample and they have been remanded to the judicial custody. Nothing has been recovered to show his involvement except some whatsapp test message connecting this accused with accused Nos.1 and 4 who is having similar allegation have been granted by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court who is having more allegation against him then this petitioner.
4
Wherein, accused No.4 is said to have paid some amount to accused No.1 through UPI. Whereas, nothing is produced against him to show that he is having connection with accused No.1 having involved in drug peddling. He is ready to abide by the conditions imposed by this Court. He is a permanent resident of Bangalore. Accused Nos.4 to 8 are all granted bail and on the ground of parity, this petitioner is also entitled for bail. Hence, prayed for granting bail.
counsel appearing for NCB filed a written objection and also contended that the petitioner actually involved in the drug trafficking. He has placed orders to accused No.1 and received the drugs and also paid the money which revealed from whatsapp text messages held between accused Nos.1 and 9. Accused No.9 is involved in trading of the drugs. The ground of parity is not available to this petitioner as accused Nos.4 to 8 are only the consumers who received the drugs and consumed it. Therefore, he
5
cannot be considered at par with accused Nos.4 to 8. The whatsapp messages clearly goes to sow that he has received drug and also paid and there was bargaining between accused Nos.1 and 9 regarding price and he has stated that more pickers are waiting for receiving the drugs and the Investigating Officer has collected material for connecting the accused with the crime along with accused No.1. More than 200 grams of MDMA pills have been seized. Commercial quality drugs have been seized from accused No.1. Twenty times more than the commercial quality drugs were seized from accused No.1. Bail petition of accused No.3 also rejected by this Court on the ground that the commercial quality drugs have been recovered. The Investigation Officer has also collected the call list regarding the conversation between accused Nos.1 and 9 which reveals accused No.9 is involved in drug peddling and selling the drugs after purchase from accused No.1. If the petitioner is granted bail, he may abscond from the prosecution case. Investigation is completed and charge-sheet has been filed. However, the possibility of
6
the petitioner absconding from the trial is not ruled out. Hence, prayed for rejecting the bail petition.
7
there is no reasonable amount to believe that accused No.4 was guilty for the alleged offences.
8
No.9 and accused No.9 bargained for price and purchased drugs from accused No.1. On perusal of the same, it clearly goes to show that accused No.9 received drugs from accused No.1 and in turn selling to the customers. Of course, there is no physical recovery of drugs from accused No.9. But looking to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, it is also found during the investigation that accused No.9 used to make phone calls using the mobile number 8904163196 of the African person by name Jicks. Accused No.9 by using this phone used to purchase drugs. All these material goes to show that involvement of the accused No.9 in the drug peddling activities by purchasing drugs from accused No.1 and selling to others. Merely, the investigation is completed. The co-accused has granted bail that itself is not a ground to grant bail to this petitioner. Petitioner is actually involved in drug peddling activity. Accused Nos.1 to 3 in connection with accused No.9 distributed the drugs to various persons. The possibility of petitioner tampering with the prosecution witnesses, absconding and doing
9
similar offences are not ruled out. Therefore, the ground of parity cannot be extended to this petitioner. The judgment relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable to the case. The Court cannot appreciate or re-appreciate the statement of the witnesses at this stage and the same shall be looked only after the trial, therefore, I do not find any ground to grant bail to accused No.9. Accordingly, the bail petition is dismissed .
approach the Sessions Court after filing of charge-sheet said to be filed during the pendency of this petition.
Sd/JUDGE
GBB
3 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner accused of drug peddling under the NDPS Act.
Whether the grant of bail to co-accused No.4 establishes a ground of parity for the petitioner.
Whether WhatsApp messages between the petitioner and accused No.1 establish involvement in drug peddling.
Gareld Praveen Kumar
Union of India
K. Natarajan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court