Allowed

Sri Balaji C v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC7 Jul 2022CRL.P/4260/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a criminal petition seeking regular bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for a petitioner accused of drug trafficking under the NDPS Act. The court released the petitioner subject to a personal bond, sureties, and standard bail conditions like no tampering with witnesses and not leaving the jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail subject to personal bond of Rs. 2,00,000/-, two sureties for like sum, no tampering with witnesses, and permission for leaving jurisdiction.

Sri Balaji C Vs State of Karnataka — Narcotics (NDPS) | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF JULY, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4260/2022

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI BALAJI C, S/O CHAKRABHAVI, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT 2/8, SAIYATH CHOWDAR STREET, 1^ST FLOOR, SHEVAPETE, SELAM, TAMILNADU-636002. ...PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI GIRISH R, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY KUMARASWAMI LAYOUT P.S., NOW REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001. ...RESPONDENT

¶11

(BY SRI. MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP)

¶12

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.20/2021 OF KUMARASWAMY LAYOUT POLICE STATION, BENGALURU CITY FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 22(c) AND 27(a) OF THE NDPS ACT ON THE FILE OF XXXIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE (NDPS) BENGALURU IN SPL.C.NO.1672/2021.

¶13

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

¶14

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

This petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail of the petitioner in Crime No.20/2021 of Kumaraswamy Layout Police Station, Bengaluru City, for the offence punishable under Sections 22(c) and 27(a) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (‘NDPS Act’ for short).

¶17

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

¶18

The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is that on credible information, accused No.1 was apprehended and seized 334 LSD strips and cash of Rs.530/- on 18.01.2021 in between 3.45 p.m. to 5.45 p.m. and mahazar was done and the value of the same is around Rs.7 lakhs. The FIR is also registered against accused No.1 and it is the case of the prosecution that on the second day, an amount of Rs.27,50,000/- was recovered at the instance of the petitioner.

¶19

It is also the case of the prosecution that on the next day, accused Nos.1 and 2 were taken to the room of accused No.1,

¶20

¶21

wherein seized 9310 LSD strips and the same is worth of Rs.1 Crore. Hence, charge-sheet is filed against this petitioner also based on the voluntary statement of accused No.1 and both of them joined together in trafficking the LSD strips.

¶22

The learned counsel for the petitioner would vehemently contend that no recovery is made at the instance of the petitioner and he is a gold merchant and produced the GST certificate to show that he is a gold merchant and death certificate of his father. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this cased based on the voluntary statement of accused No.1. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner was arrested on 20.01.2021 and from the date of arrest, he is in custody and there are no any criminal antecedents against the petitioner and hence he may be enlarged on bail.

¶23

Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State submits that on 19.01.2021, an amount of Rs.27,50,000/- was seized at the instance of the petitioner. The learned counsel submits that 9310 LSD strips was seized from the house of accused No.1 and

¶24

¶25

at that time, this petitioner was very much present and he used to supply LSD strips and he is operating all over the country and by mistake, the seizure of 9310 LSD strips is not mentioned in the charge-sheet and hence there is a prima facie case against the petitioner herein.

¶26

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State and also on perusal of the material available on record, at the first instance, 334 LSD strips and cash of Rs.530/- were seized at the instance of accused No.1 and subsequently, the amount was recovered at the instance of the petitioner and also apple mobile phone and 3 laptops. On the next day, according to the prosecution, joint recovery was made at the instance of the petitioner and accused No.1. On perusal of P.F. available at page No.54, it is mentioned that recovery is made at the instance of accused No.1 and not at the instance of this petitioner stating that the same was there in the room of accused No.1. The main contention of the prosecution

¶27

is that this petitioner is the peddler operating all over the country. Though there is no recovery at the instance of the petitioner, the petitioner was present along with accused No.1

¶28

¶29

and seizure was made from the room of accused No.1 and not at the conscious possession of this petitioner. The only material relied upon by the prosecution is the voluntary statement of accused No.1 and no doubt, cash of Rs.27,50,000/- was recovered at the instance of the petitioner and when the petitioner claims that he is a gold merchant and also produced GST certificate to show that he is a gold merchant having proprietary business and in the absence of any material, continuing this petitioner in custody after 1½ years amounts to pre-conviction and hence it is a fit case to exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioner with conditions.

¶30

In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

¶31

following:

¶32

ORDER

¶33

The petition is allowed. Consequently, the petitioner shall be released on bail in connection with Crime No.20/2021 of Kumaraswamy Layout Police Station, Bengaluru City, for the offence punishable under Sections 22(c) and 27(a) of NDPS Act, subject to the following conditions:

¶34

(i) The petitioner shall execute his personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs

¶35

¶36

only) with two sureties for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.

¶37

(ii) The petitioner shall not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses.

¶38

(iii) The petitioner shall appear before the jurisdictional Court on all the future hearing dates, unless exempted by the Court for any genuine cause.

¶39

(iv) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without prior permission of the Court till the case registered against him is disposed of.

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

JUDGE

¶42

Sri Balaji C v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Balaji C 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

Prabhu Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Arundathi Poly Clinic and Diagnostics Vs the State Appropriate Authority (Saa)

Mr.Yasin Vs the State of Karnataka

K. N. Krishnegowda Vs R. Pallavi

Sri Prajwalraj .M @ Prajwal Vs State of Karnataka

Neelappa Agadi Vs the State of Karnataka