Ashhar Ahamed @ Jahid Vs the State of Karnataka

ASHHAR AHAMED @ JAHID @ ASHHAR AHAMED ABOOBACKER S/O LATE M.B.ABOOBACKER AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS R/AT NO.A1-ARFA 8-45/1 KATLA KAAN ROAD IDDYA SURATHKAL POST MANGALORE DAKSHINA KANNADA PIN-575 014

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. ASHA K, ADVOCATE)

¶12

Digitally signed by NAGARAJA B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BYATARAYANAPURA POLICE STATION BENGALURU

¶15

REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT COMPLEX BENGALURU - 560001

¶16

SRI.VINOD KARIKATTI PC-17931

¶17

BYATARAYANAPURA POLICE STATION

¶18

2 -

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:29741 CRL.P No. 11123 of 2025

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

BENGALURU PIN - 560 026

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI.M.R.PATIL, HCGP FOR R.1)

¶24

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/SEC.482 CR.P.C (U/S 528 BNSS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.187/2025 OF RESPONDENT BYATARAYANAPURA POLICE, FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/SEC.8(c), 20(b) OF NDPS ACT, ON THE FILE OF THE XXXIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS, SPECIAL JUDGE AT BENGALURU AND ETC.

¶25

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

This petition is filed by the petitioner - accused No.3 seeking quashing of the FIR in Crime No.187/2025 registered by Byatarayanapura Police Station for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 8(c) and 20(b) of NDPS Act on the file of the XXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Special Judge, Bengaluru.

¶28

3 -

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC:29741 CRL.P No. 11123 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP. Perused the records.

¶32

The principal contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there are absolutely no incriminating materials against the petitioner to warrant his implication in the present case. It is submitted that the petitioner has been arrayed as Accused No.3 solely on the basis of confessional statements allegedly made by Accused Nos.1 and 2 while they were in judicial custody. It is argued that such statements, without any independent corroboration, cannot form the basis for implicating the petitioner.

¶33

The petitioner further contends that he is a physically challenged person and has produced a disability certificate in support of the same. Referring to this document, it is urged that the petitioner could not have been involved in the alleged offences. It is further submitted that the alleged recovery of contraband has

¶34

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:29741 CRL.P No. 11123 of 2025

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

been made exclusively from the possession of Accused Nos.1 and 2, and there is no prima facie material to connect the petitioner with the alleged crime. On these grounds, the petitioner seeks quashing of the criminal proceedings initiated against him.

¶37

The present case involves the seizure of contraband substances, and the Investigating Officer is stated to be in the process of conducting a detailed investigation. Considering the gravity of the offences and

¶38

the nature of the allegations, this Court is of the opinion that the investigation should be permitted to proceed unhindered. Premature interference at this stage, when

¶39

the investigation is still underway, may have serious consequences and broader ramifications for public interest and societal well-being.

¶40

Therefore, this Court is not inclined to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings at this preliminary stage. The contentions

¶41

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:29741 CRL.P No. 11123 of 2025

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

raised by the petitioner, including the absence of direct evidence, can be appropriately addressed upon completion of the investigation and filing of the final report. Though the learned counsel has relied on a judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench to seek similar relief, it is pertinent to note that in the said case, the indulgence was granted after the charge sheet had been filed, which is not the case here.

¶44

In view of the above, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is not inclined to interfere at this stage.

¶45

Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed.

¶46

Consequently, IA..No.1/2025 is also dismissed.

¶47

Sd/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶48

NBM

¶49

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7