Allowed

Shiyan @ Mohammed Shiyas v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC18 Jan 2023CRL.P/197/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka granted regular bail to the petitioner accused in a commercial quantity drug case under Sections 20(b) and 22(c) of NDPS Act. The court allowed the bail despite the commercial quantity involved, noting the petitioner's lack of antecedents, student status, and completion of investigation.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail with personal bond of Rs. 2,00,000/- and two sureties, subject to conditions regarding witness tampering, appearance, and jurisdiction.

Shiyan @ Mohammed Shiyas Vs State of Karnataka — Narcotics (NDPS) | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

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

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.197/2023

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SHIYAN @ MOHAMMED SHIYAS, S/O BASHEER, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS R/AT NO.40, 3^RD CROSS, ACHIT NAGAR, SOLADEVANAHALLI, ACHIT NAGAR POST, BANGALORE 560 107.

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI LETHIF B, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY SOLADEVANAHALLI POLICE STATION, REP BY SPP, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE 560 001.

¶12

...RESPONDENT

¶13

(BY SRI RAHUL RAI K, HCGP)

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.92/2022 OF SOLADEVANAHALLI P.S., BENGALURU CITY FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 20(b), 20(b)(i), 22(c) OF NDPS ACT ON THE FILE OF THE XXXIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPL.JUDGE (NDPS) BENGALURU.

¶15

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

¶16

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

This petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail of the petitioner in Crime No.92/2022 of Soladevanahalli Police Station, Bengaluru City, for the offence punishable under Sections 20(b), 20(b)(i) and 22(c) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.

¶19

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

¶20

This petitioner has been arraigned as accused No.7 and earlier he had approached this Court during the crime stage in Crl.P.No.5905/2022 and this Court vide order dated 22.07.2022 dismissed the bail petition. However, liberty was given to the petitioner to approach this Court after filing of the charge-sheet.

¶21

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody from 11.05.2022 and the police have investigated the matter and filed the charge-sheet. There is no

¶22

any criminal antecedents against the petitioner. The learned counsel would contend that at the instance of accused Nos.1 and

¶23

¶24

3, recovery was made in the apartment, wherein accused Nos.1 to 3 are the tenants of C.W.4 and this petitioner is not the tenant. The petitioner is a student of I year Nursing and the quantity of weed oil seized is 1118 grams and the same is just above the commercial quantity. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner is pursuing his education and on 13.02.2023 he is having exam and he is ready to obey the conditions that may be imposed by this Court and hence, he may be enlarged on bail.

¶25

Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State submits that the quantity of weed oil seized is commercial quantity and ganja is also seized. The learned counsel submits that he was very much present at the time of seizure of weed oil in the apartment and mere completion of the investigation is not a ground to grant bail.

¶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, the case of the prosecution is that recovery

¶27

¶28

is made when the petitioner was very much present in the apartment when accused Nos.1 and 3 led the investigation team. Having taken note of the quantity of weed oil seized, the same is little higher than the commercial quantity. There is no any criminal antecedents against the petitioner and he is pursing I year Nursing. The petitioner was not a tenant of the said apartment and accused Nos.1 to 3 are the tenants of C.W.4 in respect of the said apartment. Having taken note of all these material into consideration and when the investigation is completed and charge-sheet is filed, it is appropriate to enlarge the petitioner on bail with conditions.

¶29

In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

¶30

following:

¶31

ORDER

¶32

The petition is allowed. Consequently, the petitioner shall be released on bail in connection with Crime No.92/2022 of Soladevanahalli Police Station, Bengaluru City, for the offence punishable under Sections 20(b), 20(b)(i) and 22(c) of NDPS Act, subject to the following conditions:

¶33

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

¶34

¶35

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

¶36

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

¶37

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

¶38

(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.

¶39

Sd/-

¶40

JUDGE

¶41

Shiyan @ Mohammed Shiyas v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shiyan @ Mohammed Shiyas 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

Smt. Rehana Parvin Vs Sri. Venkatanarasegowda

B R Premakumari Vs a C Mahesh

B G Chowdappa Vs B G Nagaraj

Sri Ramappa Vs Sri Narayanappa

Sri Ramappa Vs Sri Munivenkatarayappa @ Venkateshappa

Hanumanthappa Sali Vs Kavitha Sali