Allowed

Numan Ahmed v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC8 Sept 2021CRL.P/5615/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a criminal petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. to enlarge the petitioner on bail in a seizure case under the NDPS Act. Granting bail was based on the principle of parity as co-accused of the same batch were already released on bail, despite contraband being recovered from others.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on bail by bond of Rupees Two Lakhs with two sureties on conditions regarding non-committing offences, non-tampering with witnesses, and appearance before court.

Numan Ahmed Vs State of Karnataka — Narcotics (NDPS) | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G. UMA

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION No.5615 OF 2021

¶7

BETWEEN :

¶8

NUMAN AHMED, S/O. ZAHEER AHMED, AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS, R/O. NO.22/1, 3^RD FLOOR, 3^RD CROSS, ANNAYYAPPA BLOCK, NEAR AQSA MASJID, BENSON TOWN, BENGALURU – 560 046.

¶9

… PETITIONER (BY SRI. ANAND R.V., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND :

¶11

STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY J.C.NAGAR POLICE STATION, BENGALURU CITY – 560 006. REP. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ATTACHED HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, BENGALURU. (BY SRI: H.R. SHOWRI, HCGP)

¶12

… RESPONDENT

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO. 93/2021 OF J.C.NAGAR P.S., BENGALURU CITY FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 20 (b) AND 20(C) OF NDPS ACT.

¶14

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

¶15

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

The petitioner-accused No.2 is before this Court seeking grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in Crime No.93/2021 of J.C. Nagar Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Section 20(b) and 20(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), on the basis of first information lodged by the informant, Munikrishna D.H.

¶18

Heard Sri. Anand R.V., learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri. H.R. Showri, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State. Perused the materials on record.

¶19

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is arrayed as accused No.2. He is innocent and has not committed any offences as alleged. He has been falsely implicated in the matter without any basis. He was apprehended on 20.06.2021 and since then he is in judicial custody. The investigation has been completed and the charge sheet is also filed. As per the

¶20

¶21

case made out by the prosecution, accused Nos.1 to 3 were caught red handed and from accused No.1 a Black Plastic bag, which contained 1.100 grams of 'Ganja' was seized under the seizure mahazar. Similarly, 950 grams of weed oil with cash of Rs.1,000/- was recovered from accused No.2 and 60 grams of ganja was recovered from accused No.3. It is stated that on the basis of the information provided by these accused, the co-accused were also arraigned as accused in the matter and some of them were also apprehended. However, accused No.1 is already enlarged on bail by this Court in Crl.P.No.5679/2021 dated 31.08.2021. Accused No.3 against whom similar allegations are made is enlarged on bail. The Investigating Officer has not seized any contraband from the possession of the present petitioner. Under such circumstances, he is entitled for the benefit of bail. He is not having any criminal antecedents. He is the permanent resident of the address mentioned in the cause title to the petition and is ready and willing to abide by any

¶22

¶23

of the conditions that would be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays to allow the petition.

¶24

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader opposing the petition submitted that serious allegations are made against the petitioner for having committed the offences. Accused Nos.1 to 3 were caught red handed and 1,100/- grams of ganja and 60 grams of weed oil were recovered at their instance. On the basis of voluntary statement of these accused, accused No.4 who is a foreign national was apprehended and from his possession 62.9 grams of MDMA and 78 grams of Cocaine was recovered. The investigation is still at the initial stage. Accused Nos.7, 8, 9, 11, 14 and 16 are still absconding. Under such circumstances, the petitioners are not entitled to be enlarged on bail. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the petition.

¶25

In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:

¶26

¶27

“Whether the petitioner is

¶28

entitled for grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.?”

¶29

My answer to the above point is in ‘Affirmative’ for the following:

¶30

R E A S O N S

¶31

The materials on record disclose that serious allegations are made against the accused for having committed the offences as stated above. The investigation has been completed and the charge sheet is also filed. As per the case made out by the prosecution, accused Nos.1 to 3 were caught red handed and from accused No.1, a

¶32

Black Plastic bag, which contained 1.100 grams of Ganja was seized under the seizure mahazar. Similarly, 950 grams of weed oil and cash of Rs.1,000/- was recovered from accused No.2 and 60 grams of ganja was recovered from accused No.3. It is stated that on the basis of information provided by these accused, the co-accused were also implicated in the matter and some of them were also apprehended. The Investigating Officer has not

¶33

¶34

seized any contraband from the possession of the present petitioner. It is not in dispute that accused No.1 against whom similar allegations are made and more than 1 kg. of ganja was seized is already enlarged on bail by this Court by order dated 31.08.2021 in Crl.P.No.5679/2021. Accused No.3 against whom similar allegations are made is also enlarged on bail. Under such circumstances, I do not find any reason to reject the prayer of the petitioner. The petitioner is also entitled to be enlarged on bail on the principle of parity Hence, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail subject to conditions, which will take care of the apprehension expressed by the learned High Court Government Pleader that the petitioner may abscond or may tamper or threaten the prosecution witnesses.

¶35

Accordingly, I answer the above point in the

¶36

affirmative and proceed to pass the following:

¶37

ORDER

¶38

The petition is allowed.

¶39

¶40

The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.93/2020 of J.C. Nagar Police Station, Bengaluru, on obtaining the bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court, subject to the following conditions:

¶41

a). The petitioner shall not commit similar offences. b). The petitioner shall not threaten or tamper with the prosecution witnesses. c). The petitioner shall appear before the Court as and when required.

¶42

If in case, the petitioner violates any of the conditions as stated above, the prosecution will be at liberty to move the Trial Court seeking cancellation of bail.

¶43

On furnishing the sureties by the petitioner, the Trial Court is at liberty to direct the Investigating Officer to verify the correctness of the address and authenticity of the documents furnished by the petitioner and the sureties and a report may be called for in that regard, which is to be submitted by the Investigating Officer within 5 days.

¶44

¶45

The Trial Court on satisfaction, may proceed to accept the sureties for the purpose of releasing the petitioner on bail.

¶46

Sd/JUDGE

¶47

BMC

Numan Ahmed v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Numan Ahmed 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

Syed Suhail @ Suhail @ Papaya Vs State of Karnataka

State of Karnataka Vs Sharukh Khan

The State of Karnataka Vs Sri Umesha

Nikhil D L Vs State of Karnataka by

Ahmed Pasha Vs State of Karnataka

Feeroz Khan Vs State of Karnataka by