Sri Suresh Kumar Daka Vs State of Karnataka

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY CYBER CRIME POLICE, BANGALORE CITY-560068 REPRESENTED BY LEARNED STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI VINAY MAHADEVAIAH, HCGP)

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 CR.P.C PRYAING TO ENLARGE HIM ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.33/2023 OF CYBER CRIME P.S., BANGALORE CITY, PENDING IN SPL.C.NO.242/2024, ON THE FILE OF XXXIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:17269 CRL.P No.4161 of 2025

¶19

JUDGE FOR NDPS CASES, BANGALORE, FOR OFFENCES P/U/S 66(c),66(d) OF I.T ACT, U/S 18(b) OF NDPS ACT.

¶20

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

Accused No.2 in Spl.C.No.242/2024 pending before the Court of XXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for NDPS Cases, Bangalore, arising out of Crime No.33/2023 of Cyber Crime Police Station, Bangalore, for offences punishable under Sections 66(c),66(d) of the Information Technology Act and Section 18(b) OF NDPS Act, is before this Court seeking regular bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.

¶24

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶25

FIR in Crime No.33/2023 was registered by Cyber Crime Police Station, Bangalore, for the aforesaid offences against one Gangaram and others based on the first information dated 12.10.2023 received from Shravan Kumar, S/o Krishnarao Patil. During the course of investigation, petitioner herein and

¶26

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:17269 CRL.P No.4161 of 2025

¶27

other two accused were arrested on 12.10.2023 and subsequently remanded to judicial custody. After completing investigation, charge-sheet has been filed against three persons and the petitioner is arraigned as accused No.2 in the charge-sheet. His bail application filed before the jurisdictional Sessions Court in Crl.Misc.No.3988/2024 was rejected on 19.06.2024, therefore, he is before this Court.

¶28

Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the allegation against all the accused in the charge-sheet is identical. Accused Nos.1 and 3 have been granted regular bail by the Sessions Court in Spl.C.C.No.242/2024 by Order dated 22.03.2025 on the ground that the seized contraband article is of intermediate quantity. He submits that the seized contraband article as found from the FSL report is husk of a plant known as papaver. In the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of AJAIB

¶29

SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB - (2000) 4 SCC 510 , it has been held that husk has to be considered as poppy straw and as per the relevant Notification issued under the provisions of Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, quantity of poppy

¶30

4 -

¶31

NC: 2025:KHC:17269 CRL.P No.4161 of 2025

¶32

straw weighing above 50 Kgs. is treated as commercial quantity and accordingly, prays to allow the petition.

¶33

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader has opposed the petition submitting that seized contraband article in the present case is of commercial quantity. The order passed by the Sessions Court granting regular bail to accused Nos.1 and 3 is being challenged by the State. Petitioner hails from Rajasthan State. In the event he is enlarged on bail, chances of he fleeing away from justice are more and accordingly, prays to dismiss the petition.

¶34

Perusal of the material on record would go to show that allegation against accused Nos.1 to 3 in the charge-sheet are identical. It is not in dispute that accused Nos.1 and 3 have been granted regular bail by the jurisdictional Sessions Court by order dated 22.03.2025 on the ground that seized contraband article is of intermediate quantity. The said order has not been questioned till date. Seizure of the contraband article is from the joint custody of accused Nos.1 to 3. Undisputedly petitioner has no criminal antecedents. The

¶35

5 -

¶36

NC: 2025:KHC:17269 CRL.P No.4161 of 2025

¶37

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case of AJAIB SINGH at paragraph Nos.14 and 15 has observed as follows:

¶38

"14. We are unable to accept the arguments of Mr. Sharma and Mr. Rao. Under Section 15 the offence Is in respect of "poppy straw". Even though the term "poppy husk" has not been defined in Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, the term "poppy straw" has been defined. The term "poppy straw" includes all parts (except the seeds) of the "opium poppy". "Opium poppy" means the plant of the species Pap aver. Thus except for the seed all other parts of the plant of the species Pap aver would fall in the term "poppy straw". To be noted that parts of the plant Pap aver would fall within the term "poppy straw" even though no juice has been extracted therefrom. For an offence under Section 15 it is not at all necessary that "poppy straw" should have been used or made into "opium". For cultivation, producing, manufacturing, possessing, selling, purchasing, transporting, importing or exporting inter-State or using opium there is a separate offence provided for under Section 18. If the alleged offence is under Section 18, then the question may arise whether the preparation contained more than 0.2 per cent of morphine. For an offence under Section 15, question of considering whether the preparation contains more than 0.2 per cent of morphine does not arise. As seen above even though no juice may have been extracted, so long as it is a Pap aver, it would still be "poppy straw" if it is a part of the plant Papaver.

¶39

The Modi's Text Book of Medical Jurisprudence & Toxicology says that a poppy seed is used in foods, sprinkled over sweets and also yields a bland oil, which is used for culinary and

¶40

6 -

¶41

NC: 2025:KHC:17269 CRL.P No.4161 of 2025

¶42

lighting purposes. It is because of this that a seed has been excluded from the definition of poppy straw. Poppy seed could be used in food or Indian sweets or made into oil, which is largely used for culinary and lighting purposes only after it is de-husked. Thus the seed would be separated from the husk. The definition of husk as given in Webster's Dictionary, shows that the husk is any covering, especially when it is comparatively worth less. The husk whether it is on the seed or is removed from the seed remains a part of the plant Pap aver. In the commentaries on Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act by Mr. P. K. Jain it is set out that crushed capsules of poppy of commonly called poppy husk" or "bulky" whether extracted or not and that they contain a certain percentage of morphine and are often used as addition producing intoxicants, Thus it would fall within the definition of the term "poppy straw", which includes all parts of the plant Pap aver. While seed has been specifically excluded husk has not been excluded, from the definition of the term poppy straw". Therefore, in our view the producing, possessing, transporting, importing, exporting inter-State, selling, purchasing, using or omitting to warehouse poppy husk would be an offence under Section 15 inasmuch as poppy husk would fall within the term poppy straw as used in that Section."

¶43

The seized contraband article in the present case totally weighs about 10 Kgs. 250 Gms. Under the relevant Notification issued under the provisions of NDPS Act, 1985, poppy straw weighing above 50 Kgs. is treated as commercial quantity. FSL report in the present case would go to show that seized

¶44

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:17269 CRL.P No.4161 of 2025

¶45

contraband article is husk falling under 'poppy straw' as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of AJAIB SINGH (supra). Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the prayer made by the petitioner for grant of regular bail has to be answered affirmatively.

¶46

8. Accordingly, the petition is allowed.

¶47

The petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail in Crime No. 33/2023 of Cyber Crime Police Station, Bangalore, for offences punishable under Sections 66(c), 66(d) of the Information Technology Act and Section 18(b) OF NDPS Act, subject to the following conditions:

¶48

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;

¶49

b) The petitioner shall appear regularly on all the dates of hearing before the Trial Court unless the Trial Court exempts her appearance for valid reasons;

¶50

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

¶51

NC: 2025:KHC:17269 CRL.P No.4161 of 2025

¶52