Dismissed

State of Karnataka v. Sharukh Khan

Karnataka HC7 Sept 2021CRL.P/1697/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal petition under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C sought cancellation of bail in an NDPS case involving possession of ganja. The High Court noted issues with the trial court's classification but found no violation of bail conditions by the accused. Dismissing the petition, the court held no reason to interfere with the trial court's order.

What did the court decide?

Petition seeking cancellation of bail under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C was dismissed.

State of Karnataka Vs Sharukh Khan — Narcotics (NDPS) | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 07^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G.UMA

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1697 OF 2021

¶7

BETWEEN :

¶8

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY CEN CRIME POLICE STATION DAVANAGERE - 577 001 REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARANTAKA BENGALURU. … PETITIONER (BY SRI. H.R.SHOWRI, HCGP)

¶9

AND :

¶10

SHARUKH KHAN S/O SHARIF SAB AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS DRIVER R/O JAYANAGARA B-BLOCK DAVANAGERE - 577 001.

¶11

MUJEEBULLA SHAREEF M. @ BABA S/O MD. IRFAN AHAMED SHAREF AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS # 676, 12TH CROSS GOWLIGARA SHREET B.H.ROAD, BHADRAVATHI SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201.

¶12

MUBHARAK KHAN S/O NASER KHAN AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS 1^ST MAIN, 1ST CORSS

¶13

¶14

NEAR GANDHINAGAR POLICE STATION AZAD NAGAR DAVANAGERE - 577 001. … RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI. V.B.SIDDARAMAIAH, ADV. FOR R1; SRI. UMESH P.B., ADV. FOR SRI. R.B.DESHPANTE, ADV. FOR R3; R2 IS SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED)

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 (2) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO CANCEL THE ORDER OF BAIL BY SETTING ASIDE THE DATED 02.09.2020 PASSED BY CR.NO.53/2020 PASSED BY J.M.F.C.-II, DAVANAGERE FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 20(b) OF THE NDPS ACT AND DIRECT THAT THE ACCUSED/RESPONDENT BY ARRESTED AND COMMITTED TO CUSTODY AND ALLOW THIS CRIMINAL PETITION.

¶17

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

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

The petitioner-State is before this Court seeking cancellation of bail granted by the Court of J.M.F.C.-II, Davanagere, vide order dated 02.09.2020 and to permit the petitioner to take the respondents - accused Nos.1 to 3 into custody in Crime No.53/2020 of Davanagere CEN Crime Police Station, registered for the offence punishable under Section 20(b) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'NDPS Act).

¶20

Heard Sri. H.R.Showri, learned High Court Government Pleader for the petitioner-State, Sri.V.B.Siddaramaiah, learned counsel for respondent No.1

¶21

¶22

and Sri.Umesh P.B., learned counsel for respondent No.3. Even though respondent No.2 is served, there is no representation on his behalf. Perused the materials on record.

¶23

Learned High Court Government Pleader submits

¶24

that the respondents are arrayed as accused Nos.1 to 3. The respondents are involved in the offence punishable under Section 20(b) of NDPS Act. The FIR was registered on 01.09.2020 and accused Nos.1 to 3 were produced before the learned Magistrate. Immediately after their production, learned Magistrate proceeded to allow their application under Section 437 of Cr.P.C. vide order dated 02.09.2020, without affording opportunity to the learned Prosecutor to oppose the petition and to file objections. The request of the prosecution for remand of accused Nos.1 to 3 was rejected. In fact, the respondents were required by Investigating Officer for custodial interrogation. Accused No.4 is still absconding. Moreover, the learned Magistrate erroneously held that the offence in question falls under Schedule I Part II of Cr.P.C. But in fact, the offence alleged is non-bailable and small quantity of Ganja was recovered from the custody of respondents. The respondent is having criminal antecedents.

¶25

¶26

Without considering any of these facts, the petition came to be allowed. Therefore, the prosecution is before this Court seeking cancellation of bail granted by the trial Court.

¶27

Per contra , learned counsel representing the respondents submitted that more than a year has been lapsed after allowing the bail application and now at this stage, they are not required for investigation. It is the contention of respondents that there is no violation of any of the conditions that were imposed by the trial Court. The respondents never violated any of the conditions and co-operated the investigation throughout. Under such circumstances, no purpose would be served by allowing the petitioner. Therefore, he prays for dismissal of the petition.

¶28

The materials placed before the Court disclose that serious allegations are made against the respondents for having committed the offences. Learned Magistrate passed the impugned order granting bail by observing that the offence in question falls under under Schedule I Part II of Cr.P.C., wherein, the offence alleged is not bailable and falls under Section 20(b) of the NDPS Act for having found in possession of 900 grams of ganja, which is of small quantity.

¶29

¶30

It is not the contention of prosecution that after enlarging the respondents on bail, they have violated any of the conditions imposed in the impugned order. No grounds are made out for cancellation of bail. Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order of trial Court, at this stage.

¶31

6. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed .

¶32

Sd/JUDGE

¶33

NR/-

State of Karnataka v. Sharukh Khan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Karnataka v. Sharukh Khan

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

Rahul Kumar @ Chote Lal @ Lal Vs State of Karnataka

Sahil Mohammed Vs the State by

Sri. Mehboob Khan Vs State by Holenarsipura Town Police Station

Syed Suhail @ Suhail @ Papaya Vs State of Karnataka

The State of Karnataka Vs Sri Umesha

Smt Eramma Vs the State of Karnataka