Criminal petition filed for bail in an NDPS case. The High Court rejected the plea, holding the offence of large quantity of ganja recovery to be serious enough to render the accused ineligible for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
Petition for bail rejected; petitioner not entitled to grant of bail.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JULY, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G.UMA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3885/2021
BETWEEN :
SRI.SIDDANATH GANGADHAR LAVATE S/O GANDHAR LAVATE AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS R/AT ALMEL VILALGE SINDGI TLAUK VIJAYAPURA DISTRICT 586128
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI.MURTHY D.NAIK., ADVOCATE)
AND :
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ASHOK NAGAR POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU 560 001.
… RESPONDENT
(BY SRI ABHIJITH.K.S, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C PRAYING THIS COURT TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.57/2020 OF SESHADRIPURAM P.S., BENGALURU CITY FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 20(B)(C) NDPS ACT.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R
The petitioner-accused No.4 is before this Court seeking grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in Crime No.57/2020 of Sheshadripuram Police Station, on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant registered for the offence punishable under Section 20 (b)(c) of Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'NDPS')
that the accused No.5 had purchased ganja from accused No.4 who is the petitioner herein. Petitioner was found and 200 grams of ganja was recovered from him. It was also found that accused No.4 alongwith accused Nos.2 and 3 had concealed 150kgs of ganja in a shed in the land belonging to accused No.3. Accused Nos.4 and 5 used to sell the contraband in Bengaluru.
that the petitioner is innocent and has not committed any offence. He is arraigned as accused No.4 and apprehended on 06.09.2021 only on the basis of the so called information given by accused No.5. It is the contention of the prosecution that 200 grams of ganja was recovered from the present petitioner. It is also his contention that the petitioner has given voluntary statement and on the
basis of the same, contra band was seized from the pond near Bidar-Kalburagi Highway. The mandatory requirement under Sections 42(2) and 50 of NDPS Act is not at all complied with and the FIR was registered subsequent to the seizure which is also against the procedure contemplated under law. He was apprehended on 06.09.2020 and since then he is in judicial custody. The investigation has been completed and the charge sheet is also filed. Since the investigation is already completed, detention of the petitioner in custody would amount to pretrial punishment. The petitioner is the permanent resident of the address mentioned in the cause title of the petition and 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.
Pleader opposing the petition submitted that serious allegations are made against the petitioner who is
arraigned as accused No.4 for having committed the offences. Initially 200 grams of ganja was recovered from him and on the basis of the voluntary statement given by him, he was taken to the place near Bidar-Kalburagi Highway from where the petitioner produced 150kgs of ganja and seizure Mahazar was drawn in the presence of Panchas. Accused No.1 who is the main accused is still absconding and as per the FSL report the sample of the seized articles is tested positive for cannabis (ganja). Thus, the offence committed by the petitioner is of serious nature and therefore he is not entitled for grant of bail. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the petition.
learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:
“Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.?”
6 -
My answer to the above point is in the ‘NEGATIVE’ for
the following:
R E A S O N S
Looking to the seriousness of the offence, which is having adverse impact on the society at large, I am of the
considered view that the petitioner is not entitled for grant of bail. Accordingly, petition stands rejected.
Sd/JUDGE
RKA
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in a case involving serious allegations of narcotics offence.
Whether the non-compliance of mandatory provisions regarding arrest and seizure bars the grant of bail.
4 provisions across 2 enactments
SRI.SIDDANATH GANGADHAR LAVATE
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
M.G.UMA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
