Harish Kumar S Vs the State of Karnataka

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY YELAHANKA POLICE STATION, BENGALURU CITY, BANGALORE-560 064 REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU.

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY MS. ASMA KOUSER, ADDL. SPP)

¶16

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:3388 CRL.P No. 565 of 2025

¶17

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.439 CR.P.C (FILED U/S.483 BNSS) PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.478/2024 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 20(C) OF NARCOTIC DRUGS & PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES ACT, 1985 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE 7^TH ADDITIONAL CMM COURT, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU CITY.

¶18

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

¶19

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶20

ORAL ORDER

¶21

Petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3 are before this Court

¶22

praying to enlarge them on regular bail in Crime No.478/2024 of Yelahanka Police Station registered for an offence punishable under Section 20(C) of NDPS Act, 1985.

¶23

Heard the learned counsel for petitioners,

¶24

learned Additional SPP for the State and perused the material on record.

¶25

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:3388 CRL.P No. 565 of 2025

¶26

The ASI/Yelahanka Police Station on receiving a credible information that a huge quantity of ganja is being smuggled into Bengaluru City through Nitte Meenakshi College Road in a truck and a car by two unknown persons, lodged a complaint at Yelahanka Police Station, on the basis of which the aforementioned crime was registered against two unknown persons and others for the offence punishable under Section 20(C) of NDPS Act, 1985.

¶27

The Police swung into action and rushed to the spot and apprehended accused Nos.1 to 4 and in all 93 kgs 170 grams of ganja was recovered. Voluntary statements of the accused were recorded, wherein they are alleged to have confessed that they secured ganja from one Arjun (accused No.7) in Visakhapatna, Andhra Pradesh to supply it to Syed Mubarak and Syed Chand, arraigned as accused Nos.5 and 6 in the remand application, who agreed to give them 2 – 3 lakhs.

¶28

4 -

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC:3388 CRL.P No. 565 of 2025

¶30

Learned Additional SPP has contended that all

¶31

the four accused were apprehended together and a huge quantity of ganja weighing about 93 kgs 170 grams has been seized. In the voluntary statements, accused have confessed to have transported the ganja from Visakhapatna to handover it to accused Nos.5 and 6. She therefore contended that there is a prima facie case against the petitioners and since the ganja seized is a commercial quantity, in view of Section 37 of NDPS Act, petitioners are not entitled for bail.

¶32

Learned counsel for petitioners has contended that learned Sessions Judge while dismissing the bail petition of these petitioners has wrongly observed that they are found in possession of 93 kgs 170 grams of ganja which is not correct. However, even according to prosecution there is no recovery of ganja at the instance of petitioners. On the other hand, it is specifically stated that the ganja was recovered from accused Nos.1 and 4. Only a mobile phone has been recovered from the

¶33

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:3388 CRL.P No. 565 of 2025

¶34

exclusive possession of accused No.2 and there is no recovery from accused No.3. He contended that recovery of a mobile phone which is not an incriminating material, is not a ground to reject the bail petition and voluntary statements of the accused is not admissible in evidence. He contended that the petitioners have no criminal antecedents, they are innocent of the alleged offence and ready and willing to abide by any conditions. Accordingly, he has sought to allow the petition.

¶35

According to the prosecution, on a credible information received by the police that, two persons are transporting ganja in a truck and a car and they are smuggling the same into Bengaluru City through Nitte Meenakshi College Road, Yelahanka, Bengaluru, a raid was conducted by the complainant and his staff and apprehended accused Nos.1 to 4. In the remand application dated 30.11.2024, it is stated that a written permission was obtained from the Assistant Commissioner, Yelahanka sub-Division. However, it is not forthcoming as

¶36

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:3388 CRL.P No. 565 of 2025

¶37

to from where the accused were arrested. As per remand application, ganja is alleged to have been seized from accused Nos.1 and 4. A mobile phone has been seized from accused No.2. There is no recovery of any article from accused No.3. The police have sought for the custody of accused Nos.1 and 4 and not accused Nos.2 and 3. Petitioners have been interrogated. There is no ganja recovered from the exclusive possession of the petitioners. They are in judicial custody from 30.11.2024. In the absence of any material to show that all the accused were arrested together and these petitioners were also in possession of ganja, further detention of the petitioners is not necessary, as the petitioners are not required for further interrogation.

¶38

For the above mentioned reasons, petitioners can be admitted to bail by imposing conditions.

¶39

ORDER

¶40

Petition is allowed.

¶41

7 -

¶42

NC: 2025:KHC:3388 CRL.P No. 565 of 2025

¶43

Petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3 in Crime

¶44

No.478/2024 of Yelahanka Police Station, shall be enlarged on bail, subject to following conditions:

¶45

They shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) each with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.

¶46