Criminal bail application under Section 483 BNSS for possession of ganja involving commercial quantity. High Court rejected claim without prejudice in view of stringent bail conditions under Section 37 of NDPS Act and likely flight risk.
petition rejected granting liberty to revive prayer before Sessions Court after examination of witnesses.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2026:KHC:21185 CRL.P No.13710/2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026
BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL CRIMINAL PETITION NO.13710/2025 (439(Cr.PC) /
483(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
SMT. SALMA BANU @ SALMA W/O MOHAMMED AJMAL AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS PRESENTLY R/AT.NO.3314 RESIDENTIAL HOUSE MOHAMMED SAIT BLOCK MYSORE CITY-570001.
(BY SRI. GAURAV SUBRAMANYAM, ADV.,) AND:
…PETITIONER
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY LASHKAR P.S. MYSURU REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT COMPLEX BENGALURU-560-001.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. RAHUL RAI K, HCGP)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439 OF CR.P.C. (U/S 483 BNSS) PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON REGULAR BAIL IN SPL.C.NO.294/2025 ARISING OUT OF CR.NO.34/2025 OF THE RESPONDENT NO.1 LASHKAR P.S. MYSORE, FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 20(b)(ii)C OF NDPS ACT, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE VII ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE COURT, AT MYSORE.
NC: 2026:KHC:21185 CRL.P No.13710/2025
HC-KAR
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
ORAL ORDER
This petition is filed by accused No.1 under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, (for short, 'BNSS' ) seeking to enlarge her on regular bail by in Spl.C.No.294/2025 arising out of Crime No.34/2025 registered by respondent No.1-Lashkar Police Station, Mysuru City, for the offences punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, (for short, 'NDPS Act').
HC-KAR
police along with the staff and panch witnesses have conducted raid and apprehended the accused and seized ganja of total quantity of 26 kgs 80 grams and further a complaint has been lodged with the respondent-police against the petitioner and the other accused persons and the same was registered as Crime No.34/2025. It is to be noticed that jurisdictional police, after completion of investigation, filed the charge sheet against the petitioner as well as other accused.
NC: 2026:KHC:21185 CRL.P No.13710/2025
HC-KAR
make out a prima facie case against the accused. Hence,
he seeks to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
NC: 2026:KHC:21185 CRL.P No.13710/2025
HC-KAR
seized by following the proper procedure. Considering the charge sheet material and recovery, I am of the prima facie view that the petitioner has committed the offence as alleged in the charge sheet i.e. under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) and she has failed to show that she has not committed the
offence charged against her.
2. Section 37 of the NDPS Act reads as follows:
“ 37. Offences to be cognizable and nonbailable .—(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)—
(a) every offence punishable under this Act shall be cognizable;
(b) no person accused of an offence punishable for offences under Section 19 or Section 24 or Section 27A and also for offences involving commercial quantity shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless—
1 (2018) 13 SCC 813
NC: 2026:KHC:21185 CRL.P No.13710/2025
HC-KAR
(i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and
(ii) where the Public Prosecutor oppose the application, the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.
(2) The limitations on granting of bail specified in clause (b) of sub-section (1) are in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail.”
(emphasis supplied)
3. Under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, when a person is accused of an offence punishable under Section 19 or 24 or 27-A and also for offences involving commercial quantity, he shall not be released on bail unless the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and in case a Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the person is not guilty of the alleged offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. Materials on record are to be seen and the antecedents of the accused is to be examined to enter such a satisfaction. These limitations are in addition to those prescribed under CrPC or any other law in force on the grant of bail. In view of the seriousness of the offence, the lawmakers have consciously put such stringent restrictions on the discretion available to the court while considering application for release of a person on bail. It is unfortunate that the provision has not been noticed by the High Court. And it is more unfortunate that the same has not been brought to the notice of the Court."
HC-KAR
that in offences involving commercial quantity, the bail must not be granted unless the twin conditions are fulfilled i.e. 1) The public prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and 2) where the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such an offense and that he is not likely to commit any such offence, while on bail. Taking note of the bar contained in Section 37 of the NDPS Act and considering the fact that the commercial quantity of the ganja is seized from the house of the petitioner, it would not be appropriate to release the petitioner on bail as she is likely to commit similar offence and the prosecution has to record the statement of the witnesses and she is likely to induce such witnesses. The alleged offence is heinous in nature and punishable with imprisonment for 20 years. Hence, in view of the preceding analysis, I am of the view that, at this stage, it may not be appropriate to release the petitioner
HC-KAR
on bail. Hence, the petition is rejected granting liberty to the petitioner to revive her prayer for regular bail before the Sessions Court after examination of the material
witnesses by the prosecution.
Sd/(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE
BSR List No.: 2 Sl No.: 2
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted in an offence involving commercial quantity of narcotic drugs under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
Whether the petitioner has established that she is not likely to commit any offence while on bail despite the bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Satpal Singh v State of PunjabRelied on¶41
(2018) 13 SCC 813 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
SMT. SALMA BANU @ SALMA W/O MOHAMMED AJMAL
STATE OF KARNATAKA
VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
