Curating bail petitions for accused involved in drug trafficking under NDPS and Wild Protection Act. The High Court noted prima facie evidence and commercial quantity of seized drugs. Declared it a non-fit case for bail, dismissing the petitions.
Both Criminal Petitions 548/2024 and 581/2024 were dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.548/2024
C/W
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.581/2024
IN CRL.P.NO.548/2024:
BETWEEN:
SUNIL KUMAR S/O SRI. BABULAL, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/AT NO.223, 4TH MAIN, 2ND STAGE, 5TH CROSS, BASAVESHWARA LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560 050, ALSO AT BAVARLA VILLAGE, SAYCHORE TALUK AND DISTRICT, RAJASTHAN-343 041. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. GIREESHA .R.J, ADVOCATE) AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY POLICE INSPECTOR, CEN POLICE STATION, DAVANAGERE-577 001, REPRESENTED BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU-577 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. B. LAKSHMANA, HCGP)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.439 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.75/2023 OF DAVANAGERE CEN CR.P.S, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT, FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/Ss. 8(c), 21(c), 27(a) AND SEC.22 OF NDPS
ACT AND SEC.9, 39, 44, 49B, 51 OF THE WILD PROTECTION ACT ON THE FILE OF THE PRL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE SPL. JUDGE (NDPS) AT DAVANAGERE.
IN CRL.P.NO.581/2024: BETWEEN:
ASHOK KUMAR S/O SRI. RAGHUNATH RAM, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, R/AT NO.123, SRI. MUNESHWAR TEMPLE ROAD, OPPOSITE MARUTHI INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL, KODIGEHALLI, BENGALURU-560 092. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. GIREESHA .R.J, ADVOCATE) AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY POLICE INSPECTOR, CEN POLICE STATION, DAVANAGERE-577 001, REPRESENTED BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU-577 001.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. B. LAKSHMANA, HCGP)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.439 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.75/2023 OF DAVANAGERE CEN CR.P.S, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 8(c), 21(c), 27(a) AND SEC.22 OF NDPS ACT AND SEC.9, 39, 44, 49B, 51 OF THE WILD PROTECTION ACT ON THE FILE OF THE PRL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE SPL. JUDGE (NDPS) AT DAVANAGERE.
THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 28.02.2024, COMING ON FOR ‘PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER’ THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
These two petitions are filed by Accused Nos. 7 and 8 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for enlarging them on bail in Crime No.72/2023 of Davangere CEN Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c) 21(c), 27(a) and 22 of NDPS Act, 1985 and Sections 9 , 39, 44, 49B and 51 of Wild Protection Act, 1972, pending before the Court of Principal District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge (NDPS) at Davangere.
party and then by 4.40 p.m., they went to the spot, and when they reached the spot, 5 persons were found near a Car bearing No.KA.17/P.9807 and their movements were suspicious. By seeing the complainant and other police officials, they attempted to run away, but they were apprehended. On verification, about 22.64 grams of MDMA was found in their possession and they confessed regarding purchasing, consuming and also disposing of MDMA. A mahazar was also drawn and along with accused, they returned to the police station and lodged FIR. It is further alleged that, subsequently Accused No.6Ram Rathan was apprehended and on the basis of information provided by him, a raid was conducted on the house of Accused No.7, situated in Basaveshwara Layout, Bengaluru on 03.12.2023 and there, they found 27 grams of MDMA, which was seized and ie., the petitioner-Ashok Kumar (A8) was also present there. A detailed mahazar was drawn and then the petitioners were apprehended. Subsequently, they have also confessed regarding consuming MDMA and further in the said house, 06 Nails of Tiger were also traced and PF was submitted to the
Court in this regard. The petitioners were produced before the learned Special Judge and they were remanded to judicial custody. The petitioners have approached the learned Special Judge seeking regular bail and their prayer came to be rejected by the learned Special Judge, and hence they are before this Court.
also contend that, Accused Nos. 1 to 6 are not related to Accused Nos. 7 & 8 and they have been falsely implicated
for statistical purpose. He would also assert that, the names of present petitioners do not find place in the FIR and hence, he would seek for admitting the petitioners on bail.
cancer and it is required to be curtailed. Hence, he sought
for dismissal of the petition.
initially the complaint was lodged on 05.11.2023 and the raid was conducted on the same day evening and Accused Nos. 1 to 5 were apprehended with a Car and MDMA was recovered and they were also subjected to medical examination, wherein their blood shown to be contained drug.
interrogation, Accused No.1 disclosed the name of Accused No.6 regarding supplying MDMA and they apprehended Accused no.6 on 03.12.2023 and on interrogation, he disclosed the name of the present petitioners. It is asserted that the house of petitioner/Sunil Kumar in Bengaluru was raided in the evening and 27 grams of MDMA was recovered. It is the contention of the petitioners that, the raid was being conducted in the morning itself and it is hardly difficult for the Investigating Officer to apprehend Accused No.6 and then, instantly
within a short period, travel to Bengaluru from Davangere
and conduct a raid, which appears to be very unnatural story. But the records speak differently as Accused No.6 was said to have been arrested on 03.12.2023 in the morning itself and on the basis of his information, the raiding party went to Bengaluru and the raid said to have been conducted in the house of Accused No.7 ie., one of the petitioners herein. Though much arguments have been advanced regarding the timings etc., CC-TV footages are placed. That does not establish the raid at a particular time and it does not establish that present raiding party has held the raid. All these aspects are required to be tested only during the course of trial.
Rs.5,00,000-/-, which is now argued. All these aspects were not the part of grounds of bail and they are required to be substantiated only during the course of trial. Apart from that, as per the case of prosecution, about 27 grams of MDMA was recovered from the house of petitioners and both the petitioners/Accused Nos.7 & 8 were found in the said house and the recovered MDMA is a huge quantity and it is a commercial quantity. However, much arguments have been advanced regarding non-compliance of the provisions of Sections 42 and 50 of NDPS Act. The said principles cannot be made applicable as they can be applied only in case of personal search, but not search of Car or House. Under Section 35 of the NDPS Act, there is a presumption in favour of prosecution regarding culpable state of mind and it is for the petitioners/accused to rebut the said presumption. Except formal assertions regarding illegal detention and robbing of Rs.5.00 Lakhs etc., no other piece of evidence is placed before the Court and even no such complaints were made when petitioners were produced before the learned Special Judge. It is also asserted that the amount was transferred by the
petitioner/Accused No.7 to Accused No.6 at the instance of police. But, no material evidence is placed to substantiate this aspect. Further, what is the animosity for the Investigating Agency to falsely implicate the present petitioners/Accused Nos. 7 & 8, who are residents of Bengaluru, is not disclosed by the petitioners. The initial raid was conducted in Davangere and other accused were apprehended in Davangere and they were all from Davangere City. But, the petitioners are residing in Bengaluru and hence, the contention of false implication cannot be accepted.
can be exercised in favour of the petitioners. The matter
is still at the stage of investigation. Hence, considering the gravity and seriousness of the offences, the petitions
being devoid of any merit, do not survive for consideration and hence I proceed to pass the following order.
ORDER
Both Criminal Petitions - 548/2024 and 581/2024 are
dismissed.
Sd/JUDGE
KGR*
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is fit for bail given the recovery of commercial quantity of drugs and prima facie evidence against them.
Whether allegations of false implication and stage-managed raid provide sufficient grounds to grant bail at this stage.
4 provisions across 3 enactments
Sunil Kumar
Ashok Kumar
State of Karnataka
Rajendra Badamikar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
