Dismissed

Malang Pasha v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC13 Sept 2021CRL.P/5434/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed bail petitions of two accused petty accused no 3 and 4 in NDPS and Foreigners Act case involving commercial quantity of drugs. Court held bail barred under NDPS Act 1985 as twin requirements under Section 37 not met despite procedural challenges by counsel.

What did the court decide?

Bail applications dismissed per ends of justice as commercial quantity of contraband involved meeting NDPS Act bail bar.

Malang Pasha Vs State of Karnataka — Narcotics (NDPS) | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G.UMA

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5434/2021

¶7

C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6186/2021

¶8

IN CRL.P No.5434/2021

¶9

BETWEEN :

¶10

Malang Pasha S/o Shaksh wall Aged about 30 years R/at No.138 3rd Cross, 3rd Main Near Shivsagar Hotel Kamnahalli Bangalore City - 560 084

¶11

And also: R/at 6-4-114 GD Thota Timmapur Pet Raichur Raichur - 584 101

¶12

…Petitioner (By Sri.Raja K.P., Advocate)

¶13

AND : State of Karnataka By Bagalur Police Station Bangalore - 562 149 Represented by HCGP Bengaluru - 560 001 … Respondent

¶14

(By Sri. K.S. Abhijith, Advocate)

¶15

¶16

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C praying this Court to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Cr.No.68/2021 of Bagalur P.S., Bengaluru City for the offences P/U/S 8(c), 22(c) of NDPS Act and Section 14 of Foreigners Act.

¶17

IN CRL.P No.6186/2021

¶18

BETWEEN :

¶19

Jasir Thanicheri Kanday S/o Umar M.P Aged about 33 years R/at No.36, Manjunatha House 2nd Floor, Krishna Layout Kane Road, Kalkere Bangalore - 560 083 Permanently residing at Darul Earan, Poyanand Mambaram PO, Thalassery Kannur District Kerala State - 67074

¶20

…Petitioner (By Sri.Brijesh Rajput, Advocate)

¶21

AND : State by Bagalur Police Rep. by SPP High Court Building High Court of Karnataka Bengaluru - 560 001

¶22

… Respondent

¶23

(By Sri.K.S. Abhijith, Advocate)

¶24

¶25

These Criminal Petitions coming on for Orders this day, the Court the following:-

¶26

¶27

COMMON ORDER

¶28

The petitioner-accused No.3 in Criminal Petition No.5434/2021 and petitioner-accused No.4 in Criminal petition No.6186/2021 are before this Court seeking grant of grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in Crime No.68/2021 of Bagalur Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 22(C) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and Section 14 of Foreigners Act, on the basis of first information lodged by the informant Ashok B.S.Police.

¶29

Heard Sri.Raja K.P and Sri Brijesh Rajput, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri.K.S.Abhijith, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent - State. Perused the materials placed on record.

¶30

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioner in Criminal Petition No.5434/2021 is arrayed as accused No.3 and the petitioner in Criminal Petition No.6186/2021 is arrayed as accused No.4. Both these petitioners were apprehended on 13.04.2021. It is stated that credible information was received by the police regarding

¶31

¶32

possession and sale of contraband and FIR was registered against accused Nos.1 to 4. It is also stated that accused Nos.1 to 4 were found in possession of 150 grams of MDMA and 72 grams of ecstasy pills. Learned counsel submitted that the statutory procedure as contemplated under law, for seizure of the contraband are not followed by the Investigating Officer. It is not mentioned as to what is the quantity of the contraband seized from each of the accused and whether the same was witnessed by the independent panchas. The petitioners are detained in custody since 13.04.2021. They are not having any criminal antecedents and there are no prima facie material to connect the petitioners to the offence in question. These petitioners are Indian Nationals and therefore, the provisions of Foreigners Act are not at all attracted against them. The major portion of the investigation is completed and under such circumstances, the petitioners are not required to be detained in custody. Hence, both the petitioners are the permanent residents of the addresses mentioned in the cause title to the petition and are ready and willing to abide by any of the conditions that

¶33

¶34

would be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays to allow these petitions in the interest of justice.

¶35

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader opposing the petitions submitted that on the basis of credible information received by the Investigating Officer, accused Nos. 1 to 4 were found in possession of 150 grams of MDMA and 72 grams of ecstasy pills. Accused No.3 was found in possession of 53 grams of MDMA and a dagger. Accused No.4 was in possession of 16 grams of ecstasy pills, which are of commercial quantity. A mahazar is drawn in the presence of independent panchas and the search and seizure was held by ACP who is a Gazetted Officer. All the required procedures are followed in search and seizure and seizure mahazar is also drawn which is placed before the Court for perusal. The investigation is still in progress. Since, the quantity of the contraband is of commercial quantity, Section 37 1(b)(ii) of NDPS Act comes into operation against the petitioners and therefore they are not entitled for grant of bail. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of the petitions.

¶36

¶37

In view of the rival contentions urged by the

¶38

learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:

¶39

“Whether the petitioners are entitled for grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.?”

¶40

My answer to the above point is in ‘Negative’ for the

¶41

following:

¶42

R E A S O N S

¶43

The materials on record disclose that serious allegations are made against the petitioners for having committed the offences. Even though it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the procedures as contemplated under law are not complied with at the time of search and seizure, the copy of the seizure mahazar produced by the learned High Court Government Pleader for perusal of the Court discloses that such procedures are prima facie complied with during search and seizure. As per the seizure mahazar 53 grams of MDMA and a dagger from accused No.3

¶44

and 16 grams of ecstasy pills from accused No.4 were recovered, which are of commercial quantity. When the

¶45

¶46

commercial quantity of contraband was seized from the accused, Section 37 1(b)(ii) of NDPS Act comes into operation and unless the twin requirements as stated therein are satisfied, the accused are not entitled to be enlarged on bail. On perusal of the materials on record, it cannot be said that there are reasonable grounds to believe that these petitioners are not guilty of such offence and that there is no likelihood of committing any offence while they are on bail. Under such circumstances, the petitioners are not entitled for grant of bail.

¶47

Accordingly, petitions are dismissed.

¶48

Sd/JUDGE

¶49

HB/-

Malang Pasha v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Malang Pasha v. 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

Nikhil D L Vs State of Karnataka by

Ahmed Pasha Vs State of Karnataka

Numan Ahmed Vs State of Karnataka

Anjana Murthy Vs the State of Karnataka by

Raiju @ Abdul Rahiman Vs the State of Karnataka

Ajah Francis Obasi Vs State of Karnataka