Allowed

Sri Alen N v. @ Alan v State by Mic Layout Ps

Karnataka HC19 Apr 2024CRL.P/1573/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allowed bail to a 24-year-old first-time offender under the NDPS Act for possessing LSD and ganja. Held that non-compliance with Section 50 of the Act dispels strict application of commercial quantity rigor under Section 37(1)(b), enforcing Section 37(1)(a) conditions instead.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on bail on personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties, subject to standard bail conditions.

Sri Alen N v @ Alan Vs State by Mic Layout Ps — Narcotics (NDPS) | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:15722 CRL.P No. 1573 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1573 OF 2024

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI ALAN N.V @ ALAN S/O SRI BINOY AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS R/AT 401, 5TH MAIN ABBAPPA LAYOUT NEAR VEGACI BTM 2ND STAGE BENGALURU - 560 076.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI BINU M, ADV.)

¶12

AND:

¶13

STATE BY MIC LAYOUT PS REP BY HCGP/SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶14

Digitally signed by PAVITHRA N Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SRI RANGA SWAMY R, HCGP)

¶17

THIS CRL.P FILED U/S.439 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN SPL.C.C.NO.2236/2023 (CR.NO.157/2023) OF MICO LAYOUT P.S., BENGALURU CITY FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 8(c),20(b)(ii)(B) AND 22(c) OF NDPS ACT WHICH IS PENDING BEFORE THE HONBLE XXXIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AND SPL.COURT FOR NDPS AT BENGALURU.

¶18

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

¶19

¶20

NC: 2024:KHC:15722 CRL.P No. 1573 of 2024

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Accused No.1 in Spl.CC No.2236/2023 pending before the Court of XXXIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Court for NDPS, Bengaluru, arising out of Crime No.157/2023 registered by Mico Layout Police Station, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(B) and 22(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the NDPS Act' for short) is before this Court under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.

¶23

Heard the learned counsel for parties.

¶24

FIR in Crime No.157/2023 was registered by Mico Layout Police Station, Bengaluru, for the aforesaid offences against the petitioner and four others on the basis of the Repot received from Deepak, Inspector of Police, CCB on 04.06.2023. In the Report dated 04.06.2023, it is averred that the first informant who was in the Police Station received credible information about attempt to sell contraband article and immediately thereafter, a raid was conducted to the house where the accused persons were residing. Accused Nos.1 to 3 were apprehended in the house and from the possession of

¶25

¶26

NC: 2024:KHC:15722 CRL.P No. 1573 of 2024

¶27

petitioner, 0.263 grams of LSD and 1 kg 47 grams of ganja was seized. Similarly contraband article ganja was also seized from other accused. The seized contraband article was subjected to panchanama and the accused and seized contraband article were brought to the Police Station and based on the report submitted by the first informant, FIR in Crime No.157/2023 was registered. Subsequently, accused persons were produced before the jurisdictional Court and remanded to judicial custody. Investigation in the case is complete and charge sheet has been filed. Bail application filed by petitioner in Crl.Misc.No.11985/2023 before the XXXIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge & Spl. Judge (NDPS), Bengaluru, was rejected on 09.01.2024. Therefore, he is before this Court.

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has no criminal antecedents. He is in custody from 04.06.2023 onwards. Investigation in the case is complete and charge sheet has been filed. There is seizure of mobile phone from the person of the petitioner. There is no compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act in the present case. He, accordingly, prays to allow the petition.

¶29

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:15722 CRL.P No. 1573 of 2024

¶30

Per contra, learned HCGP has opposed the petition. He submits that commercial quantity of contraband article is involved in the present case and therefore, in view of Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act, the prayer made by petitioner cannot be granted.

¶31

The material on record would go to show that on receipt of credible information, first informant had conducted raid along with staff and independent panchas to the house where the petitioner and other accused were residing. From the possession of the petitioner, allegedly 0.263 grams of LSD and 1 kg 47 grams of ganja was seized. The contraband article was allegedly kept under a chair in the room of the petitioner. The seizure mahazar would go to show that in addition to the aforesaid seizure, the police have also seized mobile phone from the person of the petitioner. A perusal of the material on record would go to show that there is no compliance with the requirement of Section 50 of the NDPS Act in the present case.

¶32

The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of SK. Raju vs. State of West Bengal - (2018) 9 SCC 708 has observed that during the course of investigation, in addition to contraband

¶33

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:15722 CRL.P No. 1573 of 2024

¶34

article, if any other article is seized and the same is from the person of the accused, compliance of requirement of Section 50 of the NDPS Act becomes mandatory. It is trite that noncompliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act gives rise to a serious doubt with regard to the correctness of the seizure made. Undisputedly, petitioner has no criminal antecedents. He is in custody from 04.06.2023. Investigation in the case is complete and charge sheet has been filed. The rigor under Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act cannot be made strictly applicable to the petitioner having regard to the fact that there is no compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act. The petitioner does not have any similar antecedents. He is a youngster aged about 24 years and is in custody from more than nine months. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the prayer made by the petitioner for grant of regular bail is required to be answered affirmatively. Accordingly, the following order:-

¶35

The petition is allowed. The petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail in Spl.CC No.2236/2023 pending before the Court of XXXIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Court for NDPS, Bengaluru, arising out of Crime No.157/2023 registered by Mico Layout Police Station, Bengaluru, for the

¶36

¶37

NC: 2024:KHC:15722 CRL.P No. 1573 of 2024

¶38

offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(B) and 22(C) of the NDPS Act, subject to the following conditions:

¶39

a) Petitioner shall execute personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties for the likesum, to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court;

¶40

b) 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;

¶41

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

¶42

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

¶43

e) 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.

¶44

SD/JUDGE

¶45

Sri Alen N v. @ Alan v State by Mic Layout Ps

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Alen N v. @ Alan v State by Mic Layout Ps

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shivashankar S R Vs State of Karnataka by

Picchimuttu Vs Stae by Siddapura Police

Soma @ Soma Shekara Reddy Vs the State of Karnataka by

Sri Suryanarayana Singh Vs State of Karnataka by

Ajay Ashok Khobragade Vs the State of Karnataka

K Ekanthappa Vs the State of Karnataka