Sri. Toushif Pasha @ Dandi Toushif Vs State of Karnataka

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439 CR.PC (FILED U/S 483 BNNS) PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL BY DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT MANDI POLICE, FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 22(C) OF NDPS ACT 1985 VII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE AT MYSORE IN CR. NO 47/2026.

¶26

IN CRL.P NO. 6056/2026

¶27

BETWEEN:

¶28

JAVEED AHMED @ GANDAK JAVEED S/O. LATE MOHD JAMAL AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT: NO.2660, 5^TH CROSS, PULAKESHI ROAD, LASHKAR MOHALLA, MYSURU - 570 001

¶29

…PETITIONER

¶30

(BY SRI. LETHIF B., ADVOCATE)

¶31

AND:

¶32

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY MANDI POLICE STATION MYSURU DISTRICT, REP. BY SPP, HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶33

…RESPONDENT

¶34

(BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ASPP)

¶35

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439 CR.PC (FILED U/S 483 BNNS) PRAYING TO RELEASE HIM ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.47/2026 OF MANDI POLICE STATION, FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 22(C) OF THE NDPS ACT

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

NC: 2026:KHC:38080 CRL.P No. 5784 of 2026 C/W CRL.P No. 6056 of 2026 CRL.P No. 9546 of 2026 AND 1 OTHER

¶38

3 -

¶39

CNR: KAHC010263912026

¶40

PENDING ON THE FILE OF VII ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, AT MYSURU.

¶41

IN CRL.P NO. 9546/2026

¶42

BETWEEN:

¶43

NUHED KHAN S/O. ASLAM KHAN AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS R/AT: NO.58, 9^TH MAIN PADARAYANAPURA BENGALURU - 560 026.

¶44

…PETITIONER

¶45

(BY SRI. LETHIF, ADVOCATE)

¶46

AND:

¶47

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MANDI POLICE STATION, MYSURU DISTRICT, REP. BY SPP, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶48

…RESPONDENT

¶49

(BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ASPP)

¶50

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439 CR.PC (FILED U/S 483 BNNS) PRAYING TO RELEASE HIM ON B AIL IN SPL.C.NO.182/2026 ARISING OUT OF CR.NO.47/2026 REGISTERED BY MANDI P.S., FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 22(C) OF NDPS ACT, PENDING BEFORE THE VII ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, AT MYSURU.

¶51

4 -

¶52

NC: 2026:KHC:38080 CRL.P No. 5784 of 2026 C/W CRL.P No. 6056 of 2026 CRL.P No. 9546 of 2026 AND 1 OTHER

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

CNR: KAHC010263912026

¶55

IN CRL.P NO. 10740/2026

¶56

BETWEEN:

¶57

SRI. TOUSHIF PASHA @ DANDI TOUSHIF S/O IQBAL PASHA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS. PRESENTLY R/AT.NO.17, BLOCK NO.9, 3^RD FLOOR, 4^TH CROSS, BHARATH NAGAR-570019. (BY SRI. GAURAV SUBRAMANYAM, ADVOCATE)

¶58

…PETITIONER

¶59

AND:

¶60

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MANDI P.S, MYSURU REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT COMPLEX, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶61

…RESPONDENT (BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ASPP)

¶62

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439 CR.PC (FILED U/S 483 BNNS) PRAYING TO TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON REGULAR BAIL IN SPL.C NO.182/2026 (CRIME NO.47/2026) OF THE RESPONDENT NO.1 MANDI POLICE STATION, MYSORE FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 22(C) OF NDPS ACT PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE VII ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, COURT AT MYSURU..

¶63

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

¶64

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶65

5 -

¶66

HC-KAR

¶67

NC: 2026:KHC:38080 CRL.P No. 5784 of 2026 C/W CRL.P No. 6056 of 2026 CRL.P No. 9546 of 2026 AND 1 OTHER

¶68

CNR: KAHC010263912026

¶69

ORAL ORDER

¶70

Accused nos.1 to 3 and 5 in Crime No.47 of 2026 registered by Mandi Police Station, Mysuru City for offence punishable under Sections 22(C) of the NDPS Act are before this Court in these petitions filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 seeking regular bail.

¶71

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶72

FIR in Crime No.47 of 2026 was registered by

¶73

Mandi Police Station, Mysuru City for the aforesaid offence against petitioners herein and others, based on the first information dated 23.02.2026 received from Sri Shabbir Hussen, Police Officer attached to Mandi Police Station. In the said case, accused nos.1 to 3 were arrested on 23.02.2026 and accused no.5 was arrested on 01.03.2026. Their bail application filed before the jurisdictional Sessions Court was rejected and therefore, they are before this Court in these petitions.

¶74

Learned counsel for accused nos.1 to 3 submit

¶75

that, there is no compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act in the present case, which is mandatory in nature. Non-

¶76

6 -

¶77

NC: 2026:KHC:38080 CRL.P No. 5784 of 2026 C/W CRL.P No. 6056 of 2026 CRL.P No. 9546 of 2026 AND 1 OTHER

¶78

HC-KAR

¶79

CNR: KAHC010263912026

¶80

compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act vitiates the recovery of contraband article. In support of their arguments, they have placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of VIJAYSINH

¶81

CHANDUBHA JADEJA v. STATE OF GUJARAT - (2011) 1 SCC 609 .

¶82

Learned counsel for accused no.5 submits that, he is a person with no criminal antecedents and the seized contraband articles from his possession is of intermediate quantity. Investigation of the case is now completed and charge sheet is filed. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petitions.

¶83

Per contra, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor, who has opposed the petitions, submits that seized contraband article totally is of commercial quantity. There is compliance of the mandatory provisions of law in the present case. Therefore, in view of Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act, petitioners' prayer for grant of regular bail needs to be rejected.

¶84

7 -

¶85

HC-KAR

¶86

NC: 2026:KHC:38080 CRL.P No. 5784 of 2026 C/W CRL.P No. 6056 of 2026 CRL.P No. 9546 of 2026 AND 1 OTHER

¶87

CNR: KAHC010263912026

¶88

Perusal of the material on record would go to show that, based on credible information received on 23.02.2026, a raid was conducted to the alleged spot where accused persons were trying to sell contraband article to the public and from the said spot accused nos.1 to 4 were apprehended. From the possession of accused no.1 contraband article allegedly MDMA totally weighing 50.92 grams was seized from his pocket. From the possession of accused no.2, 15.36 grams of contraband article allegedly MDMA was seized and from the possession of accused no.3, 16.40 grams of contraband article allegedly MDMA was seized. Seizure of the aforesaid contraband articles from the possession of accused nos.1 to 3 is from their person. The seized contraband article has

¶89

now tested positive to a drug known as 'Methamphetamine'. Inventory prepared in compliance of Section 52A of the NDPS Act would go to show that the seized contraband article from the possession of accused no.1 totally weighed 49.26 grams which is below 50 grams. Therefore, the seizure of contraband article

¶90

8 -

¶91

HC-KAR

¶92

NC: 2026:KHC:38080 CRL.P No. 5784 of 2026 C/W CRL.P No. 6056 of 2026 CRL.P No. 9546 of 2026 AND 1 OTHER

¶93

CNR: KAHC010263912026

¶94

individually from the possession of accused nos.1, 2 and 3 is of intermediate quantity. In addition to the aforesaid, 31.2 grams of contraband article was also seized from the dash board of the car in which accused nos.1 to 4 had arrived at the spot of crime. Since, the seizure of contraband article from the possession of accused nos.1 to 3 is from their person, compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act becomes necessary.

¶95

Perusal of the material on record would go to show that, in the notice issued to the accused persons in compliance of the requirement of Section 50 of the NDPS Act, there is no mention of about informing their right under law to be searched in the presence of a gazetted officer or jurisdictional Magistrate of their choice.

¶96

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

¶97

VIJAYSINH CHANDUBHA JADEJA (supra) in paragraph Nos.24 and 25 it has observed as follows: -

¶98

"24. Although the Constitution Bench in Baldev Singh case (1999) 6 SCC 172 did not decide in absolute terms the question whether or not Section 50 of the NDPS Act was directory or mandatory yet it

¶99

9 -

¶100

HC-KAR

¶101

NC: 2026:KHC:38080 CRL.P No. 5784 of 2026 C/W CRL.P No. 6056 of 2026 CRL.P No. 9546 of 2026 AND 1 OTHER

¶102

CNR: KAHC010263912026

¶103

was held that provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 50 make it imperative for the empowered officer to “inform” the person concerned (suspect) about the existence of his right that if he so requires, he shall be searched before a gazetted officer or a Magistrate; failure to “inform” the suspect about the existence of his said right would cause prejudice to him, and in case he so opts, failure to conduct his search before a gazetted officer or a Magistrate, may not vitiate the trial but would render the recovery of the illicit article suspect and vitiate the conviction and sentence of an accused, where the conviction has been recorded only on the basis of the possession of the illicit article, recovered from the person during a search conducted in violation of the provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act. The Court also noted that it was not necessary that the information required to be given under Section 50 should be in a prescribed form or in writing but it was mandatory that the suspect was made aware of the existence of his right to be searched before a gazetted officer or a Magistrate, if so required by him. We respectfully concur with these conclusions. Any other interpretation of the provision would make the valuable right conferred on the suspect illusory and a farce.

¶104

25. As noted above, sub-sections (5) and (6) were inserted in Section 50 by Act 9 of 2001. It is pertinent to note that although by the insertion of the said two sub-sections, the rigour of strict procedural

¶105

10 -

¶106

HC-KAR

¶107

NC: 2026:KHC:38080 CRL.P No. 5784 of 2026 C/W CRL.P No. 6056 of 2026 CRL.P No. 9546 of 2026 AND 1 OTHER

¶108

CNR: KAHC010263912026

¶109

requirement is sought to be diluted under the circumstances mentioned in the sub-sections viz. when the authorised officer has reason to believe that any delay in search of the person is fraught with the possibility of the person to be searched parting with possession of any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance, etc., or article or document, he may proceed to search the person instead of taking him to the nearest gazetted officer or Magistrate. However, even in such cases a safeguard against any arbitrary use of power has been provided under sub-section (6). Under the said sub-section, the empowered officer is obliged to send a copy of the reasons, so recorded, to his immediate official superior within seventy-two hours of the search. In our opinion, the insertion of these two sub-sections does not obliterates the mandate of sub-section (1) of Section 50 to inform the person, to be searched, of his right to be taken before a gazetted officer or a Magistrate."

¶110

In the said case, it is observed that, failure to

¶111

conduct the search of an accused before a gazetted officer or a Magistrate would render the recovery of the contraband article illegal and also vitiate the conviction and sentence of an accused. Insofar as the accused no.5 is concerned, seizure of contraband article from his possession is of intermediate quantity. Undisputedly, he

¶112

11 -

¶113

HC-KAR

¶114

NC: 2026:KHC:38080 CRL.P No. 5784 of 2026 C/W CRL.P No. 6056 of 2026 CRL.P No. 9546 of 2026 AND 1 OTHER

¶115

CNR: KAHC010263912026

¶116

has no other criminal antecedents. Investigation of the case is now completed and charge sheet has been filed. Since the seizure of contraband article from the possession of the accused persons individually is not of commercial quantity, the rigour under Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act cannot be made strictly applicable as against them. Accused no.4 from whom there was no seizure of contraband article has been granted regular bail by this Court in Criminal Petition No.4979 of 2026 disposed of on 09.06.2026.

¶117

Considering the aforesaid aspects of the matter, I am of the opinion that the prayer made by the petitioners for grant of regular bail needs to be answered affirmatively.

¶118

Accordingly, the following:-

¶119

ORDER

¶120

(i) Criminal petitions are allowed.

¶121

(ii) The petitioners are directed to be enlarged on bail in

¶122

Crime No.47 of 2026 registered by Mandi Police Station, Mysuru City for offences punishable under

¶123

12 -

¶124

HC-KAR

¶125

NC: 2026:KHC:38080 CRL.P No. 5784 of 2026 C/W CRL.P No. 6056 of 2026 CRL.P No. 9546 of 2026 AND 1 OTHER

¶126

CNR: KAHC010263912026

¶127

Sections 22(C) of the NDPS Act, subject to the following conditions:

¶128

a) Petitioners 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;

¶129

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

¶130

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

¶131

d) The petitioners shall not involve in similar offences in future:

¶132

e) The petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without permission of the said Court until the case registered against them is disposed off.

¶133

Sd/(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE

¶134

NMS/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45

Sri. Toushif Pasha @ Dandi Toushif v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Toushif Pasha @ Dandi Toushif v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lakshman. R Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Manohara Vs the State of Karnataka

Kushal @ Shasthri Vs State by Basaveshwarnagar Police Station

Mr. Rathan Kumar Vs State of Karnataka

State of Karnataka, Vs Rokula Sandeep

Mr Anurag Gunjan Vs State by