Allowed

Shin Thangajal v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC18 Mar 2021CRL.P/289/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court granted bail to two petitioners accused of possessing narcotic substances under the NDPS Act. The court held that the quantity was small, investigation was complete, and pending absconding of a third accused did not bar bail. Bail was subject to standard conditions including personal bond and appearance before the IO.

What did the court decide?

A criminal petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed, directing the trial court to release petitioners on bail subject to specific conditions including personal bond of Rs. 2 Lakhs and no tamperin

Shin Thangajal Vs the State of Karnataka — Narcotics (NDPS) | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.289 OF 2021

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

SHIN THANGAJAL S/O. THANGAJAL SMYUEL, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.31, SRI KRUPA LAYOUT, SHETTIHALLI VILLAGE, CHIKKABANAVARA POST, BANGALORE – 90.

¶9

PERMANENT ADDRESS: SONIYAS HOUSE PIO, KATNUM POST, ALLAPI DISTRICT, KERALA STATE – 690 503.

¶10

MOHAMMED THARIK S/O. MAMMIKUTTI, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, RESIDING AT ALURU VILLAGE, DASANAPURA HOBLI, NELEMANGALA TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.

¶11

PERMANENT ADDRESS: PALATHINGAL HOUSE, ANDALA VILLAGE, MARIDUR POST, PALKAD DISTRICT, KERALA STATE – 679 336.

¶12

... PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SRI NATARAJ D., ADVOCATE)

¶14

¶15

AND

¶16

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SOLADEVANAHALLI POLICE STATION, BANGALORE, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE – 560 001.

¶17

... RESPONDENT

¶18

(BY SRI K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.209/2020 REGISTERED BY SOLADEVANAHALLI POLICE STATION, BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 8(c), 20(b), 22(b) AND 22(c) OF THE N.D.P.S. ACT.

¶20

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

¶21

ORDER

¶22

This petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., for granting regular bail in Crime No.209/2020 registered by Soladevanahalli Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 20(b), 22(b), 22(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’).

¶23

The case of the prosecution is that the complainant-Lakshman who is a Sub-Inspector of Police

¶24

¶25

registered a case against accused persons alleging that on 3.10.2020, he got a credible information that behind Acharya College road, Soladevanahalli village two persons are selling drugs. He informed the said information to the Higher Officers and got permission for the raid and he sent a requisition letter to the Gazetted Officer, who is a Government Doctor to come to the spot. The Doctor came to the spot and informed that they have right to get personal search by the Gazetted Officer or by the Magistrate. The accused agreed to search. On personal search by the Gazetted Officer, they seized 1 Kg 70 grams of ganja, 4 orange colour tablets and white powder 5 MD paper from the accused persons. The Police arrested the accused and produced before the Magistrate and remanded to the judicial custody. The petitioners approached the Sessions Court for grant of bail which came to be rejected.

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the petitioners are innocent of the alleged

¶27

¶28

offences and they have been falsely implicated in the case. They are students. They are residing at Bengaluru. The Police have falsely implicated even otherwise alleged Ganja is only 1 kg 70 grams which is small quantity and other 4 orange colour tablets do not attract the provisions of the NDPS Act. They are in custody for more than 5½ months. They are ready to abide by the conditions imposed by this Court. Hence, prayed for granting bail.

¶29

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader objected the bail petition and contended that accused No.3 is still absconding. Investigation is under progress. Petitioners are from Kerala. If the bail is granted, the possibility of the petitioners tampering with the prosecution witnesses is not ruled out. Hence, prayed for dismissing the bail petition.

¶30

Upon hearing the arguments and on perusal of the records, it goes to show that the Police apprehended accused Nos.1 and 2 and seized 1 Kg 70 grams of ganja, 4 orange colour tablets and white powder 5 MD paper from

¶31

¶32

the accused persons. Accused No.3 in his voluntary statement has stated about the involvement of accused Nos.1 and 2. They have been arrested and sent to the judicial custody on 3.10.2020. Since from five months they are in custody and maximum investigation may have been completed by the Police. The quantity of ganja seized is just about small quantity i.e., 1 kg 70 grams is little more than small quantity. FSL report is awaited to verify the contents of 4 orange colour tablets. Merely, accused No.3 is absconding, that itself is not a ground to reject the bail petition. Accused Nos.1 and 2 are said to be the permanent residents of Kerala. However, they are staying at Bengaluru. The petitioners are said to be the students, but no documents are produced for the same. They are ready to abide by the conditions imposed by this Court.

¶33

Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the petitioners are entitled for bail. By imposing certain conditions, if the bail is granted

¶34

¶35

to the petitioners, no prejudice would be caused to the prosecution case. Hence, I pass the following

¶36

ORDER

¶37

Accordingly, criminal petition is allowed .

¶38

The trial Court is directed to release the petitioners

¶39

on bail in Crime No.209/2020 registered by Soladevanahalli Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 20(b), 22(b), 22(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985, subject to the following conditions:

¶40

(i) Petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh only) each with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the trial Court;

¶41

(ii) Petitioners shall not indulge in similar offences strictly;

¶42

(iii) Petitioners shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses directly/ indirectly;

¶43

¶44

(iv) Petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction without prior permission of the trial Court.

¶45

(v) Petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer on every 2^nd and 16^th of the Calender month between 10.00 a.m. and 4.00 p.m., for a period of three months and thereafter, they shall appear once in a month on 2^nd of the calendar month till commencement of trial before the Sessions Court; and

¶46

(vi) Petitioners shall furnish proof of his correct residential address, ID proof, Ration Card/Aadhar Card etc., before the trial Court.

¶47

GBB

¶48

Sd/JUDGE

Shin Thangajal v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shin Thangajal 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

Ashraf Vs State of Karnataka

Mr. Inderkumar. M Vs State of Karnataka

Mohammed Arif Vs State by D. J. Halli

Lakshmikanth Vs State of Karnataka

Mr.Chethan D.M. Vs Basavangudi Womens Police Station

K Shivanna Vs State by Karnataka