Allowed

Chethan Kumar @ Appu v. State by Hassan Rural

Karnataka HC30 Sept 2021CRL.P/6648/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C., the High Court of Karnataka allowed the petitioner's application to be enlarged on bail in a Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act case, subject to conditions and a bond.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on bail in Crime No.27/2021 by obtaining a bond of Rs. 2,00,000 with two sureties subject to conditions.

Chethan Kumar @ Appu Vs State by Hassan Rural — Narcotics (NDPS) | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 30^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G. UMA

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION No.6648 OF 2021

¶7

BETWEEN :

¶8

CHETHAN KUMAR @ APPU S/O. CHANDRASHEKARA AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS RESIDING AT SHRIRAMANAGARA INDUSTRIAL AREA HASSAN CITY-573 201.

¶9

… PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI: KUMARA K.G., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND :

¶12

STATE BY HASSAN RURAL POLICE, HASSAN-573 201. REPRESENTED BY LEARNED SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING-560 001.

¶13

… RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SMT: RASHMI JADHAV, HCGP)

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.27/2021 OF HASSAN RURAL P.S., HASSAN FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 8(a) AND 20(B) OF NDPS ACT.

¶16

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

¶17

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

The petitioner-accused No.4 is before this Court seeking grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in Crime No.27/2021 of Hassan Rural Police Station, pending on the file of 1^st Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) & JMFC Court, Hassan District, Hassan, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 8(a) and 20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘the NDPS Act’) on the basis of first information lodged by the informant-Basavaraju.B.

¶20

Heard Sri. Kumara.K.G., learned Counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Rashmi Jadhav, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State. Perused the materials on record.

¶21

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is arrayed as accused No.4. He is innocent and law abiding citizen. He has not committed any offences as alleged. He has been falsely implicated in the matter without any basis. He was apprehended on

¶22

¶23

04.07.2021 and since then he is in judicial custody. It is alleged that accused Nos.1 and 2 were apprehended and they led the police to recover 1.100 Kgs of Ganja. Nothing has been recovered from the present petitioner nor from accused No.3. Therefore, only intermediary quantity is said to have been recovered at the instance of accused Nos.1 and 2. On the date when the present criminal case i.e., Cr.No.27/2021 was registered, Cr.No.26/2021 was registered for the offence punishable under Sections 399 and 402 of IPC and on further enquiry, it came to light that Cr.No.10/2021 was also registered for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC against the accused. The petitioner was granted anticipatory bail in Cr.No.10/2021. Apart from that he is not having any criminal antecedents. The investigation has been completed and the charge sheet is also filed. Hence, the petitioner is not required for further investigation. His detention in custody would amount to pre-trial punishment. He is the permanent resident of the address mentioned in the cause title to the petition and is ready

¶24

¶25

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

¶26

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader opposing the petition submitted that serious allegations are made against the petitioner for having committed the offences. The petitioner is the co-accused along with accused Nos.1 to 3. Even though nothing is recovered at the instance of present petitioner, 1.100 Kgs of Ganja was recovered at the instance of co-accused. Moreover, the petitioner is having criminal antecedents as Cr.No.10/2021 and Cr.No.26/2021 are registered against him with the Hassan Police. Under such circumstances and also looking to the nature and seriousness of the offence, the petitioner is not entitled for grant of bail. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the petition.

¶27

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

¶28

¶29

“Whether the petitioner is

¶30

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

¶31

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

¶32

the following:

¶33

R E A S O N S

¶34

The materials placed before the Court disclose

¶35

that serious allegations are made against the petitioner for having committed the offences as stated above. It is the specific contention of prosecution that accused Nos.1 and 2 were caught red-handed and at their instance, 1.100 Kgs of Ganja, worth Rs.30,000/- was recovered. On the basis of the information given by accused Nos.1 and 2, the present petitioner was apprehended. Even though it is contended that the present petitioner was apprehended subsequently and nothing has been recovered at his instance, at this stage, it cannot be concluded that the petitioner is falsely implicated in the matter without any basis. However, it is not the contention of the prosecution that the petitioner is required for further investigation.

¶36

¶37

Even though it is contended that the petitioner is having criminal antecedents, Cr.No.26/2021 was registered at the same time when the present criminal case was registered, in the other case i.e., Cr.No.10/2021, it is stated that the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail. Admittedly, the investigation is completed and the charge sheet is also filed. Therefore, detention of the petitioner in custody would amount to pre-trial punishment. 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 apprehensions expressed by the learned High Court Government Pleader that the petitioner may abscond or may tamper or threaten the prosecution witnesses.

¶38

Accordingly, I answer the above point in

¶39

affirmative and proceed to pass the following:

¶40

ORDER

¶41

The petition is allowed.

¶42

The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.27/2021 of Hassan Rural Police Station, pending

¶43

¶44

on the file of 1^st Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) & JMFC Court, Hassan District, Hassan, 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:

¶45

a). The petitioner shall not commit similar offences.

¶46

b). The petitioner shall not threaten or tamper with the prosecution witnesses.

¶47

c). The petitioner shall appear before the Court as and when required.

¶48

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.

¶49

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

¶50

¶51

be submitted by the Investigating Officer within 5 days. The Trial Court on satisfaction, may proceed to accept the sureties for the purpose of releasing the petitioner on bail.

¶52

Sd/JUDGE

¶53

SMJ

Chethan Kumar @ Appu v. State by Hassan Rural

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chethan Kumar @ Appu v. State by Hassan Rural

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

Prakash M Rao Vs State of Karnataka by

Naveen Yadav Vs State of Karnataka

Babu H K @ Pulsar Babu Vs State of Karnataka

Pavan @ Vs State of Karnataka by

Sri. Veer @ Veera @ Joseph Vs State of Karnataka by

Sri Rasheed Vs the State of Karnataka