Faris Mokhta Babiker Ali Vs State of Karnataka

¶1

1 -

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

NC: 2026:KHC:37157 CRL.P No. 8343 of 2026

¶4

CNR: KAHC010392692026

¶5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8343 OF 2026

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

FARIS MOKHTA BABIKER ALI S/O MOKHTAR BABIKER ALI AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS PRESENT ADDRESS NO.2185 4TH FLOOR 28TH B CROSS, 16TH MAIN LIG 3RD PHASE, UDAY LAYOUT YELAHANKA NEW TOWN - 560 064.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI KIRANKUMAR H.K, ADV.)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by NANDINI M S

¶13

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SHO YALAHANKA NEW TOWN P.S REPTD BY GOVE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDNG BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶15

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI VINAY MAHADEVAIAH, HCGP) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439 CR.P.C (U/S 483 BNSS) PRAYING TO RELEASE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN SPL.C.NO.1671/2023 ARISING OUT OF CR.NO.336/2022 REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT POLICE, FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 14 OF FOREIGNERS ACT, 1946.

¶16

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

¶17

CORAM:

¶18

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶19

2 -

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

NC: 2026:KHC:37157 CRL.P No. 8343 of 2026

¶22

CNR: KAHC010392692026

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

1. Accused No.2 in Special Case No.1671/2023 pending before the Court of XXXIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge (NDPS), Bengaluru, arising out of Crime No.336/2022 registered by Yelahanka New Town Police Station, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c) and 22(c) of the NDPS Act, 1985 and Section 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, is before this Court in this petition filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023, seeking regular bail.

¶25

2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶26

3. FIR in Crime No.336/2022 was registered by Yelahanka New Town Police Station, Bengaluru, for the aforesaid offences against Hasan W. A. Hashem and the petitioner herein based on the first information dated 08.11.2022 received from B. S. Ashok, police officer attached to Yelahanka New Town Police Station, Bengaluru. In the said case, petitioner, who was in custody in another case in Kerala was produced under body warrant before Trial Court on 03.12.2022. Subsequently, investigation was completed and charge sheet is filed against two persons. Petitioner is arrayed as accused No.2 in the

¶27

3 -

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

NC: 2026:KHC:37157 CRL.P No. 8343 of 2026

¶30

CNR: KAHC010392692026

¶31

charge sheet. Petitioner's bail application filed before the Trial Court in Special Case No.1671/2023 was rejected on 13.05.2026. Therefore, he is before this Court.

¶32

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no contraband article has been seized from the possession of the petitioner in the present case. Accused No.1, from whose possession the contraband article was seized, was released on statutory bail. In the only other criminal case registered against the petitioner in Kerala, for which he was tried in SC No.814/2022 by the jurisdictional Sessions Court, Thrissur, he was acquitted on 26.12.2025. As on this date, only two charge sheet witnesses are examined as PW1 and PW2. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition.

¶33

5. Per contra, learned HCGP, who has opposed the petition, does not dispute the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶34

6. Perusal of the first information in Crime No.336/2022 would reveal that based on credible information received at about 04.00 p.m. on 08.11.2022, a raid was conducted to the

¶35

4 -

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

NC: 2026:KHC:37157 CRL.P No. 8343 of 2026

¶38

CNR: KAHC010392692026

¶39

house in which accused Nos.1 and 2 were staying and from the said house, accused No.1 was apprehended and from his possession contraband article allegedly MDMA totally weighing 320 grams was seized under a panchanama. It appears that accused No.1 during the course of interrogation had stated that accused No.2 had supplied the contraband article to him. It is under these circumstances, FIR was registered against accused Nos.1 and 2. Subsequently, accused No.2/petitioner, who was in custody in a case registered for offences punishable under provisions of the NDPS Act in Kerala State, was produced before the Trial Court under body warrant in the present case on 03.12.2022 and remanded to judicial custody. Investigation of the case was subsequently completed and charge sheet was filed against accused Nos.1 and 2.

¶40

7. The order sheet of the Trial Court would reveal that since the charge sheet was not filed within the statutory period, accused No.1 was granted statutory bail in the present case by the Trial Court. Be that as it may, the fact remains that sofaras the petitioner is concerned, there is no seizure of any contraband article from him. He is in custody in the present

¶41

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:37157 CRL.P No. 8343 of 2026

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

CNR: KAHC010392692026

¶44

case for the last more than three and half years. As on this date, out of 21 charge sheet witnesses cited in the present case, two charge sheet witnesses have been examined as PW1 and PW2.

¶45

In the case of Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra and Another - 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1693 at paragraph No.19, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as follows:

¶46

"19. If the State or any prosecuting agency including the court concerned has no wherewithal to provide or protect the fundamental right of an accused to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution then the State or any other prosecuting agency should not oppose the plea for bail on the ground that the crime committed is serious. Article 21 of the Constitution applies irrespective of the nature of the crime".

¶47

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has produced the judgment and order passed by the Court of III Addl. District and Sessions Judge in SC No.814/2022, which goes to show that petitioner has been acquitted in the said case which was registered against him for the offence punishable under Section

¶48

6 -

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

NC: 2026:KHC:37157 CRL.P No. 8343 of 2026

¶51

CNR: KAHC010392692026

¶52

22(c) of the NDPS Act. Considering the aforesaid aspects of the matter, more so the fact that, petitioner from whose possession no contraband article has been seized in the present case is in custody for more than three and half years, his prayer for grant of regular bail needs to be answered affirmatively, subject to appropriate conditions. Accordingly, the following order:-

¶53

The petition is allowed. The petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail in Special Case No.1671/2023 pending before the Court of XXXIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge (NDPS), Bengaluru, arising out of Crime No.336/2022 registered by Yelahanka New Town Police Station, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c) and 22(c) of the NDPS Act, 1985 and Section 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, subject to the following conditions:

¶54

a) Petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties for the likesum, out of which, one shall be a local surety, to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court;

¶55

b) The petitioner shall appear regularly on all the dates of hearing before the Trial Court unless the

¶56

7 -

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

NC: 2026:KHC:37157 CRL.P No. 8343 of 2026

¶59

CNR: KAHC010392692026

¶60

Trial Court exempts his appearance for valid reasons;

¶61

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

¶62

d) The petitioner shall not involve in similar offences in future;

¶63

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

¶64

f) Petitioner shall surrender his Passport before the Trial Court and the same shall be subject to the orders that may be passed by the Trial Court.

¶65

Sd/(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE

¶66

DN

¶67

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 75

Faris Mokhta Babiker Ali v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Faris Mokhta Babiker Ali 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

Mr Safir Ulla Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Praveen Kumar C J Vs the State of Karnataka by

Mr Pradeep C Vs State of Karnataka by

Purushotham @ Paru, Vs State of Karnataka

Dr Kaveri Basavaraj Kadappanavar Vs State of Karnataka

Santhosh K Vs State of Karnataka