Dismissed

Rijesh Ravindran v. Union of India

Karnataka HC23 Apr 2024CRL.P/1506/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. sought by an NDPS accused in custody for about three-and-a-half years without commencement of trial. The court held delay was caused by a Coordinate Bench's stay, not Trial Court fault, and that commercial quantity of drugs barred bail. Petition dismissed with liberty to reapply after the Coordinate Bench decides.

What the court decided

AI extract

Rijesh Ravindran Vs Union of India — Narcotics (NDPS) | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:16480 CRL.P No. 1506 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF APRIL, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1506 OF 2024

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

RIJESH RAVINDRAN S/O KOLLAIKAL RAVINDRAN, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/AT NIKOO HOMES, TOWER NO.5, CHOKKANAHALLI VILLAGE, JAKKUR, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, R/AT PAVITHRAM, PATTIARAMBU, THIRUWIWAMALA, TRISSUR, KERALA - 680 588.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. PRAVEEN M. THIMMAIAH, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

UNION OF INDIA NARCOTIC CONTROL BUREAU, BANGALORE ZONAL UNIT, BANGALORE.

¶13

Digitally signed by VEDAVATHI A K Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

(REPRESENTED BY LEARNED SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR) HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SMT. SHRIDEVI M. BHOSALE, CGC)

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN NCB.F.NO.48/1/14/2020/BZU REGISTERED BY N.C.B., BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 8 R/W 22, 27A, 28 AND 29 OF N.D.P.S. ACT, PENDING ON THE FILE OF XXXIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE (NDPS), (CCH-33), BENGALURU IN SPL.C.C.NO.159/2021.

¶18

¶19

NC: 2024:KHC:16480 CRL.P No. 1506 of 2024

¶20

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

¶21

ORDER

¶22

This petition is filed by the petitioner - accused No.3 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., seeking for grant of regular bail in Crime No.NCB.File.No.48/1/14/2020/BZU registered by NCB, Bengaluru for the offence punishable under Section 8 (c) r/w Sections 22(c), 27, 27A, 28 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred as 'the NDPS Act' for short).

¶23

Heard Sri.Praveen M.Thimmaiah, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.Shridevi M.Bhosale, learned CGC for the respondent/NCB.

¶24

The case of the prosecution is that on 21.08.2020 at about 5.50 p.m., the Intelligence Officer of NCB received a credible information that one Mohammed Anoop is staying in Room No.205-206 of Royal Suites Hotel Apartment at Kalyannagar and has purchased 100 grams of Methylenedioxy methamphetamine (‘MDMA’ for short) pills and immediately the said information has been forwarded to the higher authority

¶25

¶26

NC: 2024:KHC:16480 CRL.P No. 1506 of 2024

¶27

and along with panch witnesses they went to the said place and a search has been conducted, where they found 60 grams of MDMA pills and the same has been seized by drawing a mahazar. The said Mohammed Anoop has been apprehended.

¶28

During the course of enquiry, he disclosed that he has given 40 grams of tablets to the petitioner-accused No.3. On the same day, i.e., on 21.08.2020 at about 11.10 p.m., another information report was prepared on the basis of the statement given by Mohammed Anoop, a search was conducted in the house of the petitioner at Flat No.52401 at Chookanahalli, Jakkur, Yelahanka, Bengaluru and the petitioner–accused No.3 is in possession of 40 grams of MDMA pills and 180 grams of blots of Lysergic acid Diethylamide (‘LSD’ for short) and were seized under panchanama and the petitioner–accused No.3 has been taken to judicial custody.

¶29

The present petitioner was arrested on 21.08.2020 and remanded to judicial custody. The petitioner approached the Sessions Court for granting bail, which came to be rejected and later he also approached this Court thrice in Crl.P.No.5009/2020, Crl.P.No.1305/2021 c/w

¶30

Crl.P.No.4159/2021 and Crl.P.No.1960/2023, which came to be

¶31

¶32

NC: 2024:KHC:16480 CRL.P No. 1506 of 2024

¶33

dismissed on merits by order dated 24.11.2020, 28.07.2021 and 12.06.2023 respectively. While dismissing the last criminal petition, this Court directed the Trial Court to dispose of the case within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order and if the trial has not been completed within a period of six months, the petitioner is at liberty to approach this Court for seeking bail. Accordingly, the petitioner is before this Court once again to seek grant of bail. Hence, he prays for allowing the petition.

¶34

Having heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned CGC for the respondent/NCB it reveals that of course, this petitioner has been in judicial custody for nearly 3½ years and trial has not yet commenced. As per the direction of this Court in Crl.P.No.1960/2023 dated 12.06.2023, six months have already lapsed but the trial has not yet begun. This is the ground for the petitioner to approach this Court once again. On perusal of the order passed by this Court and submission of the learned counsel which reveals that accused No.6 and 7 are in the same case have approached this Court and obtained stay of further proceedings of the Trial Court.

¶35

¶36

NC: 2024:KHC:16480 CRL.P No. 1506 of 2024

¶37

Accused No.6 is filed the writ petition No.21006/2021 under Section 227 of the Constitution of India and accused No.7 is filed Crl.P.No.7522/2023 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.,

¶38

also staying the further proceedings in the Trial Court. For that reason, the Trial Court cannot able to dispose of the matter on merits. In view of the stay granted by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, such being the case, it is not fault on the part of the Trial Court for not concluding the trial within six months. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be acceptable. The petitioner shall not be released on bail because lapse of six months. However, on the merits of the learned counsel submits that the petitioner is not a drug peddler and there are no criminal antecedents. However, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that some of the accused persons are consumers they moved the Court to quash the proceedings, where the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court reserved the order for passing W.P.No.21006/2001, also the matter was heard in part long

¶39

back and reserved for orders. Until this order was passed by the Coordinate Bench and without knowing the outcome the result of the Coordinate Bench in the said case, this Court

¶40

NC: 2024:KHC:16480 CRL.P No. 1506 of 2024

¶41

¶42

cannot come to any conclusion whether this petitioner is a consumer or some of the accused are consumer or a drug peddler but the fact remains, this petitioner was in possession of 40 grams of MDMA pills and LSD, which is a commercial quantity and punishment prescribed for minimum 20 years. Therefore, it is not a fit case to grant bail, if bail is granted there is every possibility of committing a similar offence are not ruled out. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed . However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to approach the Court after disposing of the petition by the Coordinate Bench.

¶43

Sd/JUDGE

¶44

SMC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40 CT:sK

Rijesh Ravindran v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Rijesh Ravindran v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. Strav Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Kiran Vs State by Rajgopal Nagar Ps

Sri Shashikumar N M Vs M T Krishnappa

Syed Mohammed Anif Sab Vs a Kenchamma

Lokesha K M Vs State by

Smt. Gowramma R Vs State of Karnataka