Dismissed

The State of Karnataka v. Mohammed Muzammil

Karnataka HC6 Nov 2023CRL.P/5702/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal petition filed by the State to cancel a bail order under Section 439(2) CrPC regarding NDPS offences, the High Court of Karnataka held that the case was not fit for bail cancellation. The Court noted the Forensic Science Laboratory report indicated the seized Ecstasy tablets tested negative for the substance, reducing the contraband quantity to intermediate levels, and observed th

What did the court decide?

Petition for cancellation of bail order dated 26.02.2021 dismissed; original bail order upheld.

The State of Karnataka Vs Mohammed Muzammil — Narcotics (NDPS) | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:39761 CRL.P No. 5702 of 2021

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5702 OF 2021

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY THE J P NAGAR POLICE STATION, BENGALURU REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU - 01.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI RANGASWAMY R HCGP)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by NANDINI MS Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

MOHAMMED MUZAMMIL S/O SHAIK MOHAMMED AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS R/AT NO 13, M.M. ROAD FRAZER TOWN BENGALURU - 560 005.

¶15

SYED SHOEB UDDIN S/O SYED SHUJAUDDIN AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS R/AT NO 833, 2ND CROSS RAJEEV NAGAR, 2ND STAGE MYSURU - 570 019.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI LETHIF B, ADV.)

¶18

THIS CRL.P FILED U/S.439(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO CANCEL THE BAIL ORDER DATED 26.02.2021 PASSED IN CRL.MISC.NO.1898/2021 IN CRL.NO.13/2021, PASSED BY THE XXXIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AND SPL.JUDGE (NDPS) BENGALURU OF J.P NAGAR P.S., AND CANCEL THE SAID

¶19

¶20

NC: 2023:KHC:39761 CRL.P No. 5702 of 2021

¶21

ORDER OF BAIL FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 22C AND 27A OF NDPS ACT AND DIRECT THAT THE ACCUSED/RESPONDENTS BE ARRESTED AND COMMITTED TO CUSTODY.

¶22

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

¶23

ORDER

¶24

This petition under Section 439(2) of Cr.PC is filed by the State with a prayer to cancel the bail order dated 26.02.2021 passed by the Court of XXXIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge (NDPS), Bengaluru, wherein regular bail was granted to the respondents/accused nos.1 & 2 in Crime No.13/2021 registered by J.P.Nagar Police Station, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 22(c) & 27A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, 'the NDPS Act').

¶25

Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

¶26

Based on the credible information received by the complainant on 31.01.2021, raid was conducted in Room No.303 of Arik Hotel, 15th Cross, J.P.Nagar, Bengaluru, and the accused persons named in the FIR were apprehended and from

¶27

their possession, 2.93 grams of Cocaine and 15 grams of Ecstasy tablets were seized. Bail application filed by the

¶28

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:39761 CRL.P No. 5702 of 2021

¶29

petitioners who were accused nos.1 & 2 in the FIR before the XXXIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge (NDPS), Bengaluru, in Crl. Misc. No.1898/2021 was allowed on 26.02.2021. The State has preferred this petition under Section 439(2) of Cr.PC challenging the said order dated 26.02.20211 passed in Crl. Misc. No.1898/2021.

¶30

Learned HCGP appearing for the petitioner submits that 15 grams of Ecstasy tablets is considered as commercial quantity in the relevant notification issued under the provisions of the NDPS Act. However, the learned Sessions Judge has granted bail to the respondents herein on the ground that the seized contraband article is of intermediate quantity. He submits that the learned Sessions Judge has not taken into consideration the rigour under Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act, and therefore, the bail order impugned in this petition needs to be set aside.

¶31

Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for the

¶32

respondents submits that subsequently charge sheet has been filed and the Forensic Science Laboratory report now received would go to show that the seized contraband article has tested

¶33

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:39761 CRL.P No. 5702 of 2021

¶34

negative for the substance Ecstasy. He also submits that the respondents have been regularly appearing before the Trial Court and they have been cooperating before the Trial Court for disposal of the case. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the petition.

¶35

The material on record would go to show that from the possession of the apprehended accused persons, the raiding squad had seized 2.93 grams of cocaine and 15 grams of Ecstasy tablets. 2.93 grams of cocaine is undisputedly of intermediate quantity. 10 grams and above Ecstasy tablets is considered as commercial quantity. However, the FSL report now received in the present case would go to show that after chemical examination of the sample drug, the Forensic Science Laboratory has issued a certificate to the effect that the sample drug Ecstasy has tested negative for the said substance. Under the circumstances, it cannot be said that the seized contraband article from the apprehended accused persons was of commercial quantity.

¶36

Undisputedly, the charge sheet in the case is filed and the case is now pending before the jurisdictional court for trial. The

¶37

NC: 2023:KHC:39761 CRL.P No. 5702 of 2021

¶38

¶39

submission made by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the respondents have been regularly appearing before the Trial Court and cooperating before the Trial Court for early disposal of the case is not seriously disputed by the learned HCGP. Petitioners are on bail from 26.02.2021 onwards and there is no allegation that they have violated any of the bail conditions. Under the circumstances, I am of the view that it is not a fit case for exercising powers of this Court for cancellation of the bail. Accordingly, petition is dismissed.

¶40

SD/JUDGE

¶41

The State of Karnataka v. Mohammed Muzammil

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Karnataka v. Mohammed Muzammil

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

Sri Shivalinge Gowda B Vs State of Karnataka

Shivaraj @ Shiva @ Kappe Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Harish. K Vs State of Karnataka

Madhuri. E Vs the State of Karnataka

Arfath Sharif (A-2) Vs State of Karnataka by

Rangappa Naikar @ Umesh Vs the State of Karnataka