Dismissed¶45

Sri Vignesh Prasad v. the State of Karnataka

NDPS Act – Regular bail

Karnataka HC9 Feb 2026CRL.P/17186/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru (Shivashankar Amaranannavar J), 09-02-2026 - CRL.P No. 17186/2025: Section 483 BNSS regular bail plea of Vignesh Prasad (accused No.2) in NDPS Act case (Crime No.38/2025, Panambur PS, Mangaluru; Spl.C.No.142/2025, Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)A, 22(c), 27(A), 27(b)) dismissed; MDMA 08g + 05g + 05g (car), hydroganja 0.90g, ganja 549g; total quantity commercial; eyewitness-fabrication and fear-confession claims rejected at threshold; risk of repeat offence; no grounds for bail made out.

What did the court decide?

At this stage it cannot be said that the eyewitnesses C.W.4 and C.W.5 are created persons, nor that the statement given by the petitioner was under fear. ¶44

Sri Vignesh Prasad Vs the State of Karnataka — Narcotics (NDPS) | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶45

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, arraigned as accused No.2 in Crime No.38/2025 of Panambur Police Station, Mangaluru City, for offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)A, 22(c), 27(A) and 27(b) of the NDPS Act pending as Special Case No.142/2025, is entitled to be enlarged on regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS. +1 more

¶22

Court's answer

At this stage it cannot be said that the eyewitnesses C.W.4 and C.W.5 are created persons, nor that the statement given by the petitioner was under fear.

¶44

Ratio / Principle

Grant of bail carries a risk of the petitioner again involving himself in commission of similar offences, which would affect the entire society, especially youngsters.

¶44

Key takeaways

Considering the aforesaid aspects, the petitioner has not made out any grounds for grant of bail.ratio¶44
The quantity seized from each accused is individually less than the commercial quantity but higher than the smaller quantity, while the total quantity seized is a commercial quantity.ratio¶41

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

NDPS Act - Regular bail - Section 483 BNSS petition by accused No.2 in Crime No.38/2025 of Panambur Police Station, Mangaluru City, pending as Special Case No.142/2025 before the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Mangalore - Offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)A, 22(c), 27(A) and 27(b) of the NDPS Act - MDMA seized: 08 grams from accused No.1, 05 grams from petitioner/accused No.2, 05 grams from the car; further 0.90 grams hydroganja and 549 grams ganja recovered from the car - Quantity seized from each accused individually less than commercial quantity but higher than smaller quantity; total quantity seized held commercial - Allegation that eyewitnesses C.W.4 and C.W.5 were created persons and that the petitioner's statement was made under fear rejected at this stage - Likelihood of petitioner repeating similar offence affecting society, especially youngsters, weighed against release - Petitioner held to have not made out grounds for grant of bail - Petition dismissed (Shivashankar Amaranannavar, J.).

¶1

NC: 2026:KHC:7527 CRL.P No. 17186 of 2025

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 17186 OF 2025 (439(Cr.PC) / 483(BNSS))

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI VIGNESH PRASAD S/O PRABHAKAR POOJARY AGE 23 YEARS, 1-82-G MATHRA CHAYA, NEAR RICE MILL R/AT SANTEKATTE, KERALAKALABETTA, KALYANAPURA, UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT KARNATAKA -576 105.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. AMIT KUMAR CHANDRASHEKAR SHETTY.,ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYANA MURTHY RAJASHRI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY PANAMBUR POLICE STATION DAKSHIN KANNADA DISTRICT 575010

¶15

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. HARISH GANAPATHY, HCGP) THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 CR.PC (FILED U/S 483 BNSS) PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON REGULAR BAIL WHO IS IN JUDICIAL CUSTODY IN CR.NO.38/2025 OF PANAMBUR P.S. MANGALURU CITY UNDER REGISTERED FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE P/U/S 8(c),20(b)(ii),A,22(c),27(A),27(b) OF NDPS ACT 1985 PENDING BEFORE PRL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT MANGALORE IN SPL.C.NO.142/2025.

¶16

¶17

NC: 2026:KHC:7527 CRL.P No. 17186 of 2025

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

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

¶20

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

This petition is filed by the petitioner -accused No.2 under Section 483 of BNSS praying to grant bail in Crime No.38/2025 of Panambur, Mangalore City Police Station registered for offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)A, 22(c), 27(A), 27(b) of NDPS Act pending in Special Case No.142/2025 on the file of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Mangalore.

¶23

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

¶24

learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent –State.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner might have been present with accused No.1, but he is not involved in the drug trafficking. The car belongs to accused No.1. The petitioner is aged 25 years and he is working in Udupi and

¶26

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:7527 CRL.P No. 17186 of 2025

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

he is friend of accused No.1. The confession and statement

¶29

given by this petitioner is under fear and therefore, it is not admissible. The phone has been seized and it does not contain any conversation. The statement of eyewitnesses, namely C.W.4 and C.W.5 are created. As per FIR, the quantity of MDMA has been seized from the possession of this petitioner is 05 grams but in the FSL report, it is mentioned as 04 grams and there is difference of 01 gram. The quantity of MDMA seized from this petitioner is not commercial quantity to attract offence punishable under Section 22(c) of NDPS Act and therefore, the rigor of Section 37 is not applicable. The FSL report indicates that this petitioner has not consumed the narcotic drug. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has received call letter during April 2025 for his job. The petitioner is in judicial custody since last more than 10 months and as the charge sheet is filed, he is not required for further interrogation. The maximum sentence provided for the offence alleged against the petitioner is

¶30

¶31

NC: 2026:KHC:7527 CRL.P No. 17186 of 2025

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

imprisonment which may extend upto 10 years. With this, he prays to allow the petition.

¶34

Per contra , learned High Court Government

¶35

Pleader for the respondent –State would contend that MDMA seized from accused No.1 is 08 grams and from this petitioner/accused No.2 is 05 grams and from the car is 05 grams. Therefore, total quantity of MDMA seized is 18 grams and it is commercial quantity. Therefore, the rigor of Section 37 of NDPS Act is attracted. The offence alleged is provided with punishment of imprisonment which may extend upto 20 years. The charge sheet materials show prima facie case against the petitioner for offences alleged against him. If the petitioner is granted bail, there are chances of him repeating the similar offence. With this, he prays to reject the petition.

¶36

Having heard learned counsels, this Court has

¶37

perused the charge sheet and other materials placed on record.

¶38

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:7527 CRL.P No. 17186 of 2025

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

As per charge sheet, the case of the

¶41

prosecution is that on 23.03.2025, C.W.1 when he was in police station has received credible information that two persons in car were possessing narcotic drug and he reduced the same in Station House Diary and obtained permission of higher authority and went to the spot along with the staff and gazetted officer. They found 08 grams of MDMA from the possession of accused No.1 and 05 grams of MDMA from the possession of this petitioner -accused No.2 and 05 grams of Methamphetamine from the dashboard of the car, 0.90 grams of hydroganja and 549 grams of ganja from the seat of the car. The FSL report indicates that MDMA pills found possessed by accused Nos.1 and 2 are positive for MDMA. The quantity seized is even though individually it is less than commercial quantity, higher than the smaller quantity. The total quantity seized is commercial quantity. Even for possessing quantity which is lesser than commercial quantity, the punishment provided is imprisonment which

¶42

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:7527 CRL.P No. 17186 of 2025

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

may extend upto 10 years. At this stage, it cannot be said that C.W.4 and C.W.5 are stated to be eye witnesses are created persons and the statement given by the petitioner is under fear. If the petitioner is granted bail, there are chances of him again involving commission of similar offence, which affect the entire society, especially youngsters. Considering the above aspects, the petitioner has not made out any grounds for grant of bail.

¶45

In the result, the petition is dismissed.

¶46

Sd/(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE

¶47

DSP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15

Sri Vignesh Prasad v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Vignesh Prasad v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajib Rabidas Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt.Gayathri.P Vs the State by Ccb Police Station.

Sri Shabbir Ahmed Vs State of Karnataka

Syed Riyaz @ Chapper Riyaz Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Shankar Rao Kuda Vs the State by Union of India

Y Govindappa @ Baby Vs State of Karnataka