Allowed

Moideen Rasheed v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC17 Nov 2023CRL.P/9129/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court granted bail to Moideen Rasheit in an NDPS case involving possession of 20 grams of Methamphetamine. The court held intermediate quantity applies and allowed bail with stringent conditions given completion of investigation and lack of criminal record.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail subject to executing a personal bond, surrendering passport, appearing regularly, and reporting to police every first Sunday of the month.

Moideen Rasheed Vs the State of Karnataka — Narcotics (NDPS) | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:41079 CRL.P No. 9129 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. VISHWAJITH SHETTY CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9129 OF 2023

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶7

MOIDEEN RASHEED S/O MAHAMMED AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS R/AT RASHID MANZIL NEAR JUMMA MASJID ROAD KUNNIL, SHRIYA POST AND VILLAGE KASARGOD, KERALA STATE 671322.

¶8

(BY SRI. LETHIF B, ADV.,)

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY C.E.N. CRIME POLICE STATION MANGALURU CITY REP BY SPP HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE 560001.

¶12

…RESPONDENT

¶13

(BY SRI. RAHUL K. RAI, ADV.,)

¶14

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439 OF CR.PC PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER BAIL IN CR.NO.54/2022 OF CEN CRIME POLICE STATION, MANGALURU CITY, FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 21, 21(C), 27(b) OF NDPS ACT, PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, D.K., MANGALURU IN SPL.C.NO.1/2023.

¶15

¶16

NC: 2023:KHC:41079 CRL.P No. 9129 of 2023

¶17

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

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Accused No.3 in Special Case No.1/2023 pending before the Court Principal District and Sessions Judge, D.K.Mangaluru, arising out of Crime No.54/2022 registered by CEN Crime Police Station, Mangaluru City for the offences punishable under Section 21, 21(c), 27(b) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, is before this Court under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

¶20

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶21

Facts leading to filing of this petition narrated

¶22

briefly are that on 14.06.2022 at about 11.00 p.m., the Police Inspector of CCB, Mangaluru received a credible information about transport of contraband article alleged to be MDMA from Bengaluru to Mangaluru in a Maruti Ritz car bearing Reg.No.KA-19-MC-6210. On receipt of such information, after complying with the basic mandatory requirements of law, the complainant along with the staff

¶23

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:41079 CRL.P No. 9129 of 2023

¶24

and panchas proceeded towards Padil, Mangaluru and intercepted the car bearing Reg.No.KA-19-MC-6210, which was coming from Padil Kannur side, at about 06.15 a.m. on 15.06.2022. In the said car there were four inmates; on enquiry, they revealed their names as Mohammad Rameez, Mohiddin Rashid, Abdul Ravoof and Sabitha. From the possession of Mohammad Rameez 25 grams of contraband article alleged to be MDMA was seized; from the possession of remaining three persons, who were apprehended, 20 grams each of contraband article alleged to be MDMA was seized. On the basis of the statement made by accused No.2, 40 grams of contraband article alleged to be MDMA was seized from the car bearing Reg.No.KA-19-MC-6210. Therefore, totally 125 grams of contraband article alleged to be MDMA was seized by the Police and subjected to panchanama. Thereafter, the apprehended accused and seized contraband article alleged to be MDMA were brought to the Police Station and FIR in Crime No.54/2022 was registered against the apprehended accused initially for the offence punishable under Section 21, 21(c), of Narcotic

¶25

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:41079 CRL.P No. 9129 of 2023

¶26

Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act and they were arrayed as accused Nos.1 to 4 in the FIR. During the course of investigation, other two persons were also arrested and after completing the investigation, charge sheet was filed for the offences punishable under Section 21, 21(c), 27(b) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 totally against six accused persons. Petitioner is arrayed as accused No.3 in the charge sheet. His bail application filed before the trial Court in Special Case No.1/2023 was rejected on 30.08.2023. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioner, having reiterated the grounds urged in the petition, submits that from the personal possession of the petitioner only 20 grams of contraband article is seized, and the sample contraband article has responded positive to the drug known as Methamphetamine. Therefore, the contraband article seized from the possession of the petitioner is of intermediate quantity. The petitioner has no criminal antecedent. The petitioner is in custody since 15.06.2022. Investigation in

¶28

¶29

NC: 2023:KHC:41079 CRL.P No. 9129 of 2023

¶30

the case is completed and charge sheet has been filed. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition.

¶31

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader has opposed the bail application and submits that totally 125 grams of contraband article alleged to be MDMA has been seized in the case on hand. Therefore, in view of Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act, the petitioner is not entitled for grant of bail. He submits that the petitioner hails from Kerala State and if he is released on bail, he is likely to flee from justice. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the petition.

¶32

The material on record would goes to show that based on the credible information received by the complainant, the Maruti Ritz car bearing Reg.No.KA-19-MC6210 was intercepted by the raiding squad on 15.06.2022 at 06.15a.m. and four inmates found in the car were apprehended and from their possession, contraband article alleged to be MDMA was seized. Undisputedly, from the possession of petitioner only 20 grams of contraband article

¶33

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:41079 CRL.P No. 9129 of 2023

¶34

alleged to be MDMA was seized. The sample contraband article which was forwarded for chemical examination to the Forensic Science Laboratory, has responded positively to the drug known as Methamphetamine. 50grams and above quantity of the said drug known as Methamphetamine is considered as commercial quantity. The contraband article seized from the possession of the petitioner is only 20 grams and therefore as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, from the possession of the petitioner only intermediate quantity of contraband article has been seized.

¶35

The material on record would goes to show that the car bearing Reg.No.KA-19-MC-6210, in which four accused were traveling, belongs to accused No.6 Imtiyaz Ahmed. Accused No.2 in his confession statement has stated that he had borrowed the car from Imtiyaz Ahmed for the purpose of transporting MDMA from Bengaluru to Mangaluru. He has also stated that the amount for purchase of contraband article was paid by him to accused No.1 and in turn accused No.1 had handed over the entire contraband article of 125 grams to the custody of accused No.2. He has

¶36

¶37

NC: 2023:KHC:41079 CRL.P No. 9129 of 2023

¶38

also stated in the confession statement that out of 125 grams of contraband article purchased by him from accused No.1, he had distributed 20 grams each to accused Nos.3 to 5 and had kept 25 grams of contraband article for himself and remaining 40 grams of contraband article was kept by him under the gear lever in the car. Therefore, it cannot be said that the other accused persons had the knowledge of accused No.2 having kept 40 grams of contraband article in the car. Accused No.2 is the person, who has purchased the contraband article from accused No.1 and the entire payment for purchase of contraband article was made by him to accused No.1. The material on record would also shows that accused No.2 is a person who is having criminal antecedent and he was involved in similar cases earlier. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent and he is in custody from 15.06.2022. Investigation in the case is completed and charge sheet has been filed. The trial in the case is yet to be commenced. The apprehension of the learned High Court Government Pleader can be taken care of

¶39

by imposing stringent conditions. Under these

¶40

8 - NC: 2023:KHC:41079 CRL.P No. 9129 of 2023

¶41

circumstances, I am of the opinion that the petitioner has made out a case for grant of bail. Accordingly, the following:

¶42

ORDER

¶43

The petition is allowed . The petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.54/2022 registered by CEN Crime Police Station, Mangaluru City for the offences punishable under Section 21, 21(c), 27(b) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, subject to the following conditions:

¶44

i) Petitioner shall execute personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) with two sureties for the likesum, out of which one surety shall be a local surety, to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court;

¶45

ii) The petitioner shall surrender his Passport before the trial Court till the disposal of the case;

¶46

iii) The petitioner shall appear regularly on all the dates of hearing before the Trial Court unless the Trial Court exempts his appearance for valid reasons;

¶47

¶48

NC: 2023:KHC:41079 CRL.P No. 9129 of 2023

¶49

iv) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly threaten or tamper with the prosecution witnesses;

¶50

v) The petitioner shall not involve in similar offences in future;

¶51

vi) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without permission of the said Court until the case registered against him is disposed off;

¶52

vii) The petitioner shall mark his attendance before the SHO, CEN Crime Police Station, Mangaluru, on every first Sunday of the month until disposal of the case before the trial Court.

¶53

Sd/JUDGE

¶54

BSR

Moideen Rasheed v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Moideen Rasheed v. the 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

Madesh R Vs State by Azadnagar Police Station

Sri Basava Vs State by Kadugodi Police Station

Jaheer Mohammed Rafi Vs the State of Karnataka by

Nataraju Vs State of Karnataka

Mrs. Shirin Rose Tharcies Vs State by Inspector of Customs

Joshwa I Vs State by Hsr Layout Police Station