Allowed

Mohammad Farooq @ Cheela Farooq v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC21 Mar 2024CRL.P/430/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two accused in a ganja trafficking case involving seizure of over 217 kg sought bail after about two years and ten months in custody with trial yet to commence. The court, noting parity with earlier bail granted to co-accused and reliance on the Apex Court decision in Rabi Prakash, exercised discretion under Section 439 Cr.P.C. and released both petitioners on bail with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 3 released on bail in Crime No.30/2021 of CEN Crime Police Station, Mangaluru, subject to bonds of Rs.2,00,000 each with two sureties and conditions.

Mohammad Farooq @ Cheela Farooq Vs the State of Karnataka — Narcotics (NDPS) | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:11813 CRL.P No. 430 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No.714 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.430 OF 2024

¶7

C/W

¶8

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.714 OF 2024

¶9

IN CRL.P.NO.430/2024

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

MOHAMMAD FAROOQ @ CHEELA FAROOQ S/O M.F. MUNEER AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS R/AT NEAR THAHANI SCHOOL MANNA GURI, KODIBAIL UPPALA POST, KASARGOD TALUK KERALA STATE – 671 322

¶12

Digitally signed by SHARANYA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

…PETITIONER (BY SRI LETHIF B, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ECONOMIC AND NARCOTIC CRIME POLICE STATION MANGALURU CITY REP BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA ANNEXURE TO COURT BUILDING BANGALORE 560 001

¶16

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI M DIVAKAR MADDUR, HCGP)

¶17

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:11813 CRL.P No. 430 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No.714 of 2024

¶18

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439 CR.PC PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED No.3 ON BAIL IN CR.NO.30/2021 OF CEN CRIME POLICE STATION, MANGALURU, D.K. FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 8(C),20(B)(II)(C) OF NDPS ACT AND SEC.4 AND 25(1B) (B) OF ARMS ACT AND SEC. 201 R/W 34 OF IPC AND ETC.

¶19

IN CRL.P.NO.714/2024

¶20

BETWEEN:

¶21

VUDI SRINIVASA RAO S/O LATE VUDI KASU AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS R/AT NO. 3-2, MAIN VEEDI NEAR GOVERNMENT PRIMARY SCHOL RATHNAPETE, ROLUUNTA MANDAL VISHAKAPATTNA DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH 531114

¶22

…PETITIONER

¶23

(BY SRI LETHIF B, ADVOCATE) AND:

¶24

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ECONOMIC AND NARCOTIC CRIME POLICE STATION, MANGALURU CITY REP BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA ANNEXURE TO COURT BUILDING BANGALORE 560 001

¶25

…RESPONDENT

¶26

(BY SRI M DIVAKAR MADDUR, HCGP)

¶27

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439 CR.PC PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED No.1 ON BAIL IN CR.NO.30/2021 OF CEN CRIME POLICE STATION, MANGALURU, D.K. FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 8(C),

¶28

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:11813 CRL.P No. 430 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No.714 of 2024

¶29

20(B)(II)(C) OF NDPS ACT AND SEC.4 AND 25(1B) (B) OF ARMS ACT AND SEC. 201 R/W 34 OF IPC AND ETC.

¶30

THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶31

O R D E R

¶32

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective petitioners and also the learned HCGP appearing for the State.

¶33

This Court earlier rejected the bail petition of accused No.5 in Crl.P.No.3484/2022. These petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 3. The case of the prosecution is that accused No.1 had procured ganja to the tune of 217 kg 740 grams from Vishakapatna, Andra Pradesh and bifurcated the same and accused Nos.2 to 5 have purchased the same and accused No.6 provided the vehicle to transport the same and accordingly, the same was transported in two vehicles. When these vehicles were stopped near Kotekar village, Mangaluru, on verification, it found that ganja to the tune of 60 kg 680 grams in KA03-MK-0649 Car and in other Eicher lorry it

¶34

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:11813 CRL.P No. 430 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No.714 of 2024

¶35

found that ganja to the tune of 157 kg 60 grams which was transported via Mangaluru and Kerala and the same was seized accordingly. The case has been registered and investigated the matter.

¶36

The counsel for the respective petitioners would vehemently contend that the allegation against accused No.1 is that he had procured the ganja and sold the same to accused Nos.2 to 5 and accused No.1 is implicated in the case only based on the voluntary statement of accused Nos.2 to 5 and raid was also conducted on the house of accused No.1 and found only 2 kgs of ganja in the said house and except this, nothing was found in the house of accused No.1. The counsel also contended that accused No.3 is entitled for bail on the ground of parity since this Court already granted the bail in favour of accused Nos.2 and 4 in Crl.P.No.10343/2023 c/w Crl.P.No.9828/2023 wherein this Court relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of RABI PRAKASH vs STATE OF ODISHA reported in 2023 SCC ONLINE SC 1109 where

¶37

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:11813 CRL.P No. 430 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No.714 of 2024

¶38

247 kgs ganja was recovered from the truck in which the accused was traveling and an observation is made by the Apex Court that when the trial is not been commenced for a longer period, the same is nothing but incarceration suffered by the accused. The counsel also submits that still the case is pending for Hearing Before Charge and trial has not been commenced and these petitioners are in custody from about two years ten months. Hence, they may be enlarged on bail on the basis of parity.

¶39

Per contra, the learned HCGP appearing for the respondent would vehemently contend that accused No.1 is the master mind in alleged crime and he involved in procuring the ganja to the larger extent of 217 kgs and same was sold and transported in two vehicles and based on the statement of accused Nos.2 to 5, accused No.1 was implicated in the case and also 2 kgs of ganja was seized from his house. Accused No.6 provided the vehicle for transportation of the ganja. The counsel also would vehemently contend that against accused No.3, one more

¶40

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:11813 CRL.P No. 430 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No.714 of 2024

¶41

dacoity case is pending but no other antecedents against accused No.1.

¶42

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and also considering the factual aspects, no doubt, seizure of ganja is to the tune of 157 kgs in one vehicle and 60 kgs in another vehicle. Having taken note that the incident was taken place in the month of May 2021, and these petitioners are also in custody from the date of their arrest. There is no criminal antecedents against accused No.1 and accused No.1 has been implicated based on the voluntary statement of accused Nos.2 to 5 and seizure from his house is also only 2 kgs and along with his mobile. Accused No.3 was arrested along with the other accused while transporting the ganja. This Court already exercised the powers in favour of accused Nos.2 and 4 based on the judgment of

¶43

RABI PRAKASH referred supra wherein 247 kgs of ganja was recovered from the truck in which the accused was traveling and considering the fact that accused was in

¶44

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:11813 CRL.P No. 430 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No.714 of 2024

¶45

custody for a prolonged period of more than three and half years, the Apex Court released the accused on bail. In the case on hand, admittedly, the case is still pending for consideration of Hearing Before Charge. When there is no any other criminal antecedents against these petitioners except transportation of ganja by them, it is appropriate to exercise the discretion on the ground of parity and in the absence of criminal antecedents against both the petitioners. Hence, it is a fit case to exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioners under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.

¶46

In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:

¶47

ORDER

¶48

The criminal petitions are allowed. Consequently, the petitioners/accused Nos.3 and 1 respectively shall be released on bail in connection with Crime No.30/2021 of CEN Crime Police Station, Mangaluru, D.K. for the offence punishable under Section 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(C) of NDPS Act and Section 4 and 25(1B) (b) of ARMS Act and Section

¶49

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:11813 CRL.P No. 430 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No.714 of 2024

¶50

201 read with Section 34 of IPC, subject to the following conditions:

¶51

(i) The petitioners shall execute their personal bonds for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/(Rupees Two Lakhs only) each with two sureties each for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.

¶52

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

¶53

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

¶54

(iv) The petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without prior permission of the Court till the case registered against them is disposed of.

¶55

Sd/JUDGE

¶56

Mohammad Farooq @ Cheela Farooq v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammad Farooq @ Cheela Farooq 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Harishith S R Vs State of Karnataka

Rajashekar @ Raja Vs the State of Karnataka

Rahathulla Vs Shaik Mohammed

Sri Muniyappa Vs Sri P N Venkataraghavan

Sri.M. Madhusudhan Rao Vs State of Karnataka

Shri Omkara Murthy Vs Shri B C Chandrukumar