Allowed

M R Lokesh v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC11 Sept 2024CRL.P/7955/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail petition by accused Nos.4 and 5 in an MDMA/methamphetamine seizure case. FSL showed seized substance was methamphetamine/mephedone, not MDMA; quantity of 22.64 gms was below the 50 gms commercial threshold, so Section 37 NDPS did not bar bail. Contraband not in exclusive possession. Bail granted with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners enlarged on bail on personal bond of Rs.1,00,000 each with two sureties, subject to conditions on address proof, non-tampering, non-reoffending and regular trial attendance.

M R Lokesh Vs State of Karnataka — Narcotics (NDPS) | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:37173 CRL.P No. 7955 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7955 OF 2024

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

M. R. LOKESH S/O. M. N. RAMANNA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, RESIDING AT BAMBOO BAZAR, OPP. MALLIKARJUNA TEMPLE, RMC LINK ROAD, DAVANGERE 577003.

¶9

Digitally signed by YAMUNA K L Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶10

KARTHIK. K. M., S/O MURUGESH. K. S. AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, RESIDING 3^RD CROSS, VINOBA NAGAR, DAVANAGERE 577004.

¶11

(BY SRI. CHAKRAVARTHY. T.S., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

…PETITIONERS

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY CEN POLICE STATION DAVANAGERE

¶15

REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE 560001.

¶16

…RESPONDENT

¶17

(BY SRI. RAHUL RAI K., HCGP)

¶18

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:37173 CRL.P No. 7955 of 2024

¶19

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.439 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ALLOW THE PETITION AND ENLARGE THE PETITIONER NO.1 AND 2 / ACCUSED NO.4 AND 5 ON BAIL IN CR.NO.75/2023 IN CEN CRIME POLICE STATION, DAVANAGERE AND PENDING BEFORE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT DAVANAGERE DISTRICT, DAVANAGERE FOR THE OFFENCE P/SU/ 22(b), 8(c), 27 AND 21(b) OF NDPS ACT 1985.

¶20

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

Petitioners/accused Nos.4 and 5 in Crime No.75/2023 of CEN crime police station, Davanagere has preferred this petition under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., to enlarge them on bail.

¶23

Aforementioned crime was initially registered against accused Nos.1 to 6 for offences punishable under Section 8(c), 21(c), 27(a) and 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'NDPS Act').

¶24

Charge sheet is filed against accused Nos.1 to

¶25

10 showing accused Nos.9 and 10 as absconding, for the

¶26

¶27

NC: 2024:KHC:37173 CRL.P No. 7955 of 2024

¶28

offence punishable under Section 8(c), 29, 22(b) and 27 of the NDPS Act.

¶29

Heard both sides and perused the material on

¶30

record.

¶31

It is the case of prosecution that on 05.11.2023 at about 04:00 p.m., the complainant/Police Inspector of CEN crime police station, Davanagere received a credible information that some unknown persons are in illegal possession of MDMA drugs, near a public road at Sri. Mallikarjunappa Badavane in Davanagere, situated near Mayur Global School. Immediately, he went to the spot along with his staff and panchas, wherein he noticed five persons standing near a car bearing registration No.KA-17/P-9807. On enquiry, they confessed having purchased MDMA drug from accused No.6 for consumption. A plastic cover containing 22.64 gms. of MDMA kept in the dash board of the car was seized.

¶32

The learned High Court Government Pleader

¶33

has contended that the petitioners along with other accused persons were caught red handed and from their

¶34

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:37173 CRL.P No. 7955 of 2024

¶35

possession commercial quantity of the contraband was seized and therefore, there is a prima-facie case against them. He contended that if the petitioners are enlarged on bail, they may commit similar offences and also flee from justice.

¶36

As per FSL report, seized material has not responded for MDMA, on the other hand, it responded for the presence of methamphetamine and mephedone. The commercial quantity of the said drug is 50 gms. What has been seized in this case is 22.64 gms. and therefore, it cannot be said that seized contraband in the present case is commercial quantity. Section 37 of the NDPS Act therefore, will not restrict grant of bail to the petitioners.

¶37

According to prosecution, the accused have purchased 30 gms. of drug for consumption from accused No.6. The contraband was not seized from the exclusive possession of the petitioners, on the other hand, it was alleged to be seized from the dash board of the car. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that there is a prima-facie case against the petitioners, at this stage.

¶38

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:37173 CRL.P No. 7955 of 2024

¶39

Petitioners are arraigned as accused Nos.4 and 5. They were arrested on 05.11.2023. Similarly placed accused No.1 has been enlarged on bail by this Court in Crl.P.No.5055/2024 vide order dated 27.08.2024.

¶40

Investigation is completed and charge sheet is also filed. Petitioners have no criminal antecedents. They have undertaken to offer sufficient surety to ensure their

¶41

presence before the Trial Court.

¶42

Accordingly, the following:

¶43

ORDER

¶44

i) Petition is allowed.

¶45

ii) Petitioners / accused Nos.4 and 5 in Crime

¶46

No.75/2023 of CEN crime police station, now pending in Spl.C.No.191/2024 on the file of the Court of the Principal District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge (NDPS), Davanagere, shall be enlarged on bail subject to following conditions.

¶47

a) They shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) each , with two

¶48

NC: 2024:KHC:37173 CRL.P No. 7955 of 2024

¶49

¶50

sureties for likesum to the

¶51

satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.

¶52

b) They shall furnish proof of their residential address and shall inform the Investigating Officer/Court, if there is change in address.

¶53

c) They shall not directly or indirectly tamper with the prosecution witnesses/evidence.

¶54

d) They shall not indulge themselves in committing any offence.

¶55

e) They shall appear before the Trial Court regularly.

¶56

Violation of bail conditions shall result in cancellation of the bail.

¶57

Sd/(MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE

¶58

LDC:List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10

M R Lokesh v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M R Lokesh v. 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

Varale Saroja @ Saroja Vs the State of Karnataka

Ranganath Bharadwaj Vs State of Karnataka

Mr Prayag Prayaga D G Vs State of Karnataka by

Sri. Ashoka. K. a. Vs State of Karnataka by

Rahil Adi Vs State by Ashok Nagar Police

Mmawulu Uduaka Don @ Chibuike @ Azubuike Vs by Vishveshwarapuram P S