Mahammad Fayaz B a Vs State by Karnataka by

MAHAMMAD FAYAZ B A, S/O. D. AHAMMAD KUNHI, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, R/AT BEETIGE HOUSE, CHARMADY VILLAGE AND POST, BELTHANGADY TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA – 574 228 (THE PETITIONER IS IN JUDICIAL CUSTODY)

¶15

…PETITIONER

¶16

(BY SRI. NISHIT KUMAR SHETTY.,ADVOCATE)

¶17

AND:

¶18

STATE BY KARNATAKA BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PUTTUR RURAL POLICE STATION MANGALORE, REPRESENTED BY

¶19

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:15858 CRL.P No. 3385 of 2026 C/W CRL.P No. 3399 of 2026

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001

¶22

…RESPONDENT

¶23

(BY SMT. ANITHA GIRISH N., HCGP)

¶24

THIS CRL.P FILED U/S 439 CR.PC (FILED U/S 483 BNNS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON REGULAR BAIL IN CRIME NO.9/2026 OF PUTTUR RURAL POLICE STATION FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(c) OF NDPS ACT 1985 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AND SPECIAL JUDGE, D.K.MANGALURU SITTING AT PUTTUR, D.K.DISTRICT. IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

¶25

IN CRL.P NO. 3399/2026

¶26

BETWEEN:

¶27

P RAFEEZ S/O. U UMARABBA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, RESIDING AT D.NO.2-113/6, GANDHINAGARA HOUSE, CHARMADY, BELTHANGADY TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA – 574 228

¶28

...PETITIONER

¶29

(BY SRI. NISHIT KUMAR SHETTY.,ADVOCATE)

¶30

NC: 2026:KHC:15858 CRL.P No. 3385 of 2026 C/W CRL.P No. 3399 of 2026

¶31

3 -

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

AND:

¶34

STATE BY KARNATAKA BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PUTTUR RURAL POLICE STATION MANGALORE, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, IGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001

¶35

...RESPONDENT

¶36

(BY SMT. ANITHA GIRISH N., LEARNED HCGP)

¶37

THIS CRL.P FILED U/S 439 CR.P.C (U/S 483 BNSS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON REGULAR BAIL IN CR.NO.9/2026 OF PUTTUR RURAL P.S., FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 8(c),20(b)(ii)(c) OF NDPS ACT, 1985, PENDING BEFORE THE V ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS AND SPECIAL JUDGE, D.K., MANGALURU, SITTING AT PUTTUR, D.K. DISTRICT. IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

¶38

THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,

¶39

ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶40

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

¶41

ORAL ORDER

¶42

These petitions are filed by the petitioners who are arraigned as accused Nos. 1 and 3, respectively, in Crime No.9/2026 of the respondent police for the offences punishable

¶43

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:15858 CRL.P No. 3385 of 2026 C/W CRL.P No. 3399 of 2026

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

under Sections 8(c), 20(b) (ii) (c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, ‘NDPS’).

¶46

Factual matrix of the case:

¶47

The case of the prosecution is that the complainant is a sub-inspector of police, Puttur Rural police station, who lodged the complaint stating that on 19.01.026, he had received information about the illegal transportation of a huge quantity of ganja and it was being transported in a Maruthi Baleno Car bearing Reg. No. KA-19-MG-1224 and the Ashok Leyland light goods vehicle. Those vehicles were intercepted around 03.51 pm, and the drivers of both vehicles were taken into custody and questioned. On enquiry, they disclosed that the vehicle contains 106 kg 150 grams of ganja, and it was seized as per the guidelines issued under the NDPS Act, and it was worth around Rs.53,07,500/-. Voluntary Statement of accused No. 1 was recorded. As per the said statement, Accused No. 3 was doing the finance for transporting ganja. Hence, the complaint came to be registered against accused Nos. 1 and 3. Hence, the complaint came to be registered against accused Nos. 1 and 3. The investigation is in progress.

¶48

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:15858 CRL.P No. 3385 of 2026 C/W CRL.P No. 3399 of 2026

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

Heard Sri. Nishit Kumar Shetty, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Anitha Girisha N., learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent - State.

¶51

It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioner in Crl.P.No. 3399/2026 is arraigned as accused No. 2. He was coming in his Maruthi Baleno Car bearing Reg. No. KA-19-MG-1224. It is alleged that 120 grams of ganja was seized from his possession, which is a small quantity. However, he had no knowledge regarding the transportation of 106 kgs of ganja by Accused No. 1.

¶52

The petitioner in Crl. P. No. 3385/2026 is arraigned as accused No.3. Based on the voluntary statement of accused No. 1, it is alleged that he transferred a sum of Rs. 50,000/- to the account of his brother-in-law via PhonePe. However, that itself is not sufficient to hold that he had knowledge to assist the accused Nos. 1 and 2 to transport ganja. Both the petitioners have been arrested by the respondent police on 19.03.2026 and 23.03.2026, respectively. They are the sole earning members of their respective families. They will abide by the conditions imposed by this Court in the event of their

¶53

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:15858 CRL.P No. 3385 of 2026 C/W CRL.P No. 3399 of 2026

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

release on bail. Makings of submissions learned counsel for the petitioners prays to allow the petition.

¶56

Per Contra, learned HCGP for the respondent - State vehemently submits that a huge quantity of ganja is involved in this case. Accused No. 2, with the help of Accused No. 3, was transporting the ganja for the purpose of selling the same in the market. The offence committed by the present petitioners is heinous in nature. They are spoiling the youths and the nation by selling contraband. If the petitioners are enlarged on bail, there may be chances of committing not only similar offences but also a threat to the witnesses and Society at large. Therefore, it is not appropriate to grant them bail. Making such submissions, learned HCGP prays to reject the bail petitions.

¶57

Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of the records, it appears from the remand application that Accused No. 2 was coming in a different vehicle. It is alleged that 120 grams of ganja was seized from his possession as per the law. The allegations made against accused No. 3 are that he had paid the amount through

¶58

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:15858 CRL.P No. 3385 of 2026 C/W CRL.P No. 3399 of 2026

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

Phone Pay to the account of the brother-in-law of accused No. 1. Moreover, the accused No. 3 has been arrested in the said case on the basis of the voluntary statement of accused No. 1.

¶61

Having considered the nature and gravity of the offence and also the overt act against these petitioners, it is appropriate to grant them bail by imposing suitable conditions which would take care of the apprehension of the prosecution.

¶62

Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

¶63

ORDER

¶64

i. These Criminal Petitions are allowed .

¶65

ii. The petitioners are enlarged on bail in Cr.No. 9/2026 pending on the file of V Addl. District and Sessions and Spl. Judge, D.K., for the aforesaid offences on executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each with one surety each to the like sum of the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

¶66

iii. The petitioners shall not commit any similar offence till disposal of the present case.

¶67

NC: 2026:KHC:15858 CRL.P No. 3385 of 2026 C/W CRL.P No. 3399 of 2026

¶68

8 -

¶69

HC-KAR

¶70

iv. The petitioners shall appear before the trial Court on

¶71

all hearing dates without fail.

¶72

vi. The petitioners shall not tamper with the prosecution

¶73

witnesses.

¶74

vii The petitioners shall not indulge in any criminal cases till the disposal of the present cases.

¶75

In case the petitioners violate any of the bail conditions as stated above, liberty is reserved to the prosecution to file a necessary application for cancellation of bail.

¶76

Sd/(S RACHAIAH) JUDGE

¶77

JS/-

¶78

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 50

Mahammad Fayaz B a v. State by Karnataka by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahammad Fayaz B a v. State by Karnataka by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Farman Pasha Vs the State by S.H.O.

Rahul @ Kulla Vs State of Karnataka

Chandrashekar Vs State by Psi Ajjampura Police Station

Chandrappa Vs State of Karnataka

H R Shivakumar Vs State of Karnataka

Mohammed Saif @ Saif, Vs the State of Karnataka