Dismissed

Benoth Venkatanna v. the State

Karnataka HC27 Jul 2021CRL.P/5045/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a successive bail petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The petitioner, originally from Andhra Pradesh, was accused of possessing 22 kg of ganja under the NDPS Act. The Court held that no fresh grounds were made out to entertain the plea and that the bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act was attracted.

What did the court decide?

The successive bail petition was dismissed. It is not to be entertained in the circumstances of the case.

Benoth Venkatanna Vs the State — Narcotics (NDPS) | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF JULY, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5045 OF 2021

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

BENOTH VENKATANNA S/O. LAMBANI, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.1-51, 8/3, FLAT NO.39, SECTOR-1, M-1, GMVP, VISHAKAPATTANAM CITY, ANDHRA PRADESH – 530 017.

¶9

... PETITIONER (BY SRI DILRAJ JUDE ROHIT SEQUEIRA, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND

¶11

THE STATE REPRESENTED BY UDAYAGIRI POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶12

...RESPONDENT

¶13

(BY SRI B.J. ROHIT, HCGP)

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.06 OF 2021 (SPL.C.NO.155 OF 2021) REGISTERED BY UDAYAGIRI POLICE STATION, MYSURU, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 20(b)(ii)(c) AND 8(c) OF THE N.D.P.S. ACT.

¶15

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

¶16

¶17

ORDER

¶18

This successive bail petition is filed by the petitioneraccused No.1 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., for granting regular bail in Crime No.6/2021 registered by Udayagiri Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 20(B)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’)

¶19

Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent - State.

¶20

The case of the prosecution is that on the credible information received by the PSI, Udayagiri Police Station on 7.01.2021 at about 10.15 a.m., he along with his staff went Rajeevanagar, Mysuru, they found this petitioner was in possession of Ganja of 22 kg which was seized under the panchanama in the presence of panchas as well as Gazetted Officer. He was remanded to the judicial custody. He approached this Court for granting bail in Crl.P.No.3031/2021 which came be dismissed on

¶21

¶22

21.06.2021 with liberty to approach the Sessions Judge after filing of the charge-sheet. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner has mainly contended that the total quantity of Ganja is 22 kg, but they have not bifurcated the actual Ganja as per Section 2 (iii) (b) of the NDPS Act. It has not come in the purview of the Ganja. The investigation is completed and chargesheet has been filed. Hence, prayed for allowing the petition.

¶24

5 . Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader objected for the same.

¶25

Upon hearing the arguments and on perusal of the records, admittedly, the Police have completed the investigation and also filed the charge-sheet for the above aforesaid offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(c) of the NDPS Act. The quantity of ganja seized is 22 kgs and it is mentioned in the NDPS Act as flowering

¶26

¶27

or fruiting tops of the cannabis plant (excluding the seeds and leaves when not accompanied by the tops). At this stage, without going to the trial and examining the Police Officer who has seized the ganja and weight of ganja, the contention of learned counsel cannot be acceptable that it does not come under the purview of the ganja in view of the definition of ganja under Section 2(iii)(b) of the NDPS Act.

¶28

The main objection raised by the learned High Court Government Pleader is that the petitioner is from Vishakapatnam, Andhra Pradesh and therefore, the possibility of taking the trial is impossible. Looking to the address of the petitioner and that he has stated that he is from Vishakapatnam, Andhra Pradesh which is far away from Mysuru City, if the petitioner is granted bail, definitely, there is every possibility of the petitioner absconding from the case and delaying the process is not ruled out. The offence is heinous one and the ganja is of commercial quantity. There is bar under Section 37 of the

¶29

¶30

NDPS Act. By looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the petitioner has not made out any fresh ground for considering the successive bail petition. Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed .

¶31

Sd/JUDGE

¶32

GBB

Benoth Venkatanna v. the State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Benoth Venkatanna v. the State

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

Sri H S Balasubramanya Vs Sri N Shashi Shekar

Chikkarasegowda Vs Sagar C

Mr Ganapathi Bhat Vs State of Karnataka

Mrs. Sujatha Vs Mr. H.M. Umesh

Sri. Shankare Gowda M. S. Vs Dr. Manjunatha B.V.

Sri. Nanjundaiah Vs Union of India