Allowed

Syed Anees @ Hari v. the State of Karnataka by

Karnataka HC2 Mar 2026CRL.P/299/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal petition filed for regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. Petitioner, a drug trafficking associate, argued false implication and lack of antecedents. Court allowed bail, noting no drugs seized from petitioner, imposing personal bond and conditions to ensure witness protection and court appearance.

What did the court decide?

Enlargement of petitioner on bail on personal bond of Rs. 2,00,000 with two sureties, subject to conditions including non-interference with witnesses and appearance in court.

Syed Anees @ Hari Vs the State of Karnataka by — Bail and Remand | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:12462 CRL.P No. 299 of 2026

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF MARCH, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

¶8

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 299 OF 2026

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SYED ANEES @ HARI

¶11

S/O RAFIULLA,

¶12

AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/AT NO.41, 2ND MAIN, 4TH CROSS, VALMIKINAGAR

¶13

Digitally signed by SREEDHARAN BANGALORE SUSHMA LAKSHMI Location: High Court of Karnataka

CHAMARAJPET,

BENGALURU - 560018

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. GURUSWAMI K., ADVOCATE)

¶18

AND:

¶19

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY

¶20

¶21

NC: 2026:KHC:12462 CRL.P No. 299 of 2026

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

J J NAGAR POLICE STATION,

BENGALURU

REPRESENTED BY STATE

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

HIGH COURT COMPLEX,

BENGALURU - 560001

…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. B. LAKSHMAN, HCGP)

¶31

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439 CR.P.C. (FILED U/S 483 BNSS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR. NO. 293/2025 OF RESPONDENT - J.J. NAGAR POLICE FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S. 22(C) OF NDPS ACT, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE XXXIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE FOR NDPS CASES, BENGALURU.

¶32

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

¶33

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

¶34

¶35

NC: 2026:KHC:12462 CRL.P No. 299 of 2026

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

ORAL ORDER

¶38

The petitioner is before this Court seeking for grant of regular bail in Crime No.293/2025 filed by the respondent-police for the offence under Section 22(C) of Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'NDPS Act' for short).

¶39

Brief facts of the case:

¶40

The case of the prosecution is that on 07.12.2025 at about 03.00 p.m., when the complainant was on patrolling duty, he has received an information through an informant that three persons were selling MDMA to the customers. On the basis of the said information, he had followed the procedure contemplated under the NDPS Act before proceeding to the spot and went along with the staff and panchas and apprehended the suspects.

¶41

On enquiry, he had received an information that they were selling MDMA to the customers. It is further

¶42

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:12462 CRL.P No. 299 of 2026

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

stated that he had seized 14 grams of MDMA from accused No.1 and Rs.800/- from the petitioner along with mobile phone. Thereafter, the petitioner and others have been remanded to judicial custody. The investigation is under progress.

¶45

Heard Sri.Guruswami K., learned counsel for

¶46

the petitioner and Sri. B. Lakshman, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.

¶47

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent of alleged offences and he has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that there are no antecedents against the petitioner. The petitioner was doing fishery business for his livelihood and he is living happily with his family members. However, he has been dragged into the case unnecessarily without any materials.

¶48

It is further submitted that the petitioner is the

¶49

permanent resident of Valmiki Nagar, Chamarajpet,

¶50

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:12462 CRL.P No. 299 of 2026

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

Bengaluru. He is having a family and he has to take care of the family along with the children. Therefore, he may be enlarged on bail by imposing suitable conditions. He will abide the conditions imposed by this Court in the event of his release on bail. Making such submissions, he prays to allow the petition.

¶53

Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State vehemently submitted that the petitioner is associated with accused No.1. The investigating officer seized and recovered 14 grams of MDMA from accused No.1, which is the commercial quantity. The Investigating Officer had been informed that the petitioner is an associate of accused No.1. Such being the fact, if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, there may be chances of committing similar offence and also there may

¶54

be chances of threatening the prosecution witnesses. Moreover, the act committed by the petitioner is a threat to the society at large. Therefore, the petition has to be

¶55

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:12462 CRL.P No. 299 of 2026

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

rejected. Making such submissions, he prays to reject the petition.

¶58

Heard the learned counsel for the respective

¶59

parties and perused the averments made in the complaint and the remand application produced by the petitioner. The allegation against the present petitioner is that, he is one of the associates of accused No.1. Both were selling MDMA to the customers. However, on perusal of the remand application and also the complaint, it appears that

¶60

the police have seized Rs.800/- and one mobile phone from the petitioner. That apart, no contraband was seized from the accused/petitioner. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner has made out a case to grant bail.

¶61

Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

¶62

ORDER

¶63

(i) The petition is allowed.

¶64

(ii) The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.293/2025 of respondent-

¶65

¶66

NC: 2026:KHC:12462 CRL.P No. 299 of 2026

¶67

HC-KAR

¶68

police for the offence under Section 22(C) of Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, on executing personal bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

¶69

(iii) The petitioner shall not threaten or tamper the prosecution witnesses nor hamper the proceedings of the Court.

¶70

(iv) The petitioner shall appear before the Trial Court on all hearing dates without fail.

¶71

(v) The petitioner shall not involve in any criminal cases till disposal of the case.

¶72

In case, if the petitioner violates any of the bail conditions as stated above, liberty is reserved to the prosecution to file necessary application for cancellation of bail.

¶73

Sd/(S RACHAIAH) JUDGE

¶74

¶75

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33

Syed Anees @ Hari v. the State of Karnataka by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Syed Anees @ Hari v. the State of Karnataka by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Vijayasarathy M S Vs M/S Gokul Films

Sri. N.S. Vishwanath Vs Kum. Khushi Radhya

Smt N Usha Vs the State of Karnataka

Ravi Vs State of Karnataka

Mr.Azmatulla Khan Vs the State by Dj Halli Police Station

Shri. Umren Sharieff Vs State of Karnataka