Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 370 (KAR)

Appasaheb v. State Of Karnataka

2020-02-07

H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY

body2020
JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner has sought for regular bail under section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in Crime No.232/2019 of Basavan Bagewadi Police Station registered for the offence punishable under section 20(A) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as NDPS Act). 2. The first informant in this case is the Police Sub-Inspector of the respondent - police station, who in his complaint, has stated that based on credible information received by him on 05.12.2019 at 8.15 a.m. that the present petitioner/accused has grown ganja plants (cannabis) in his land in Bagewadi, passed on the said information to his superior and after obtaining permission and guidance from them for conducting the raid and seizing the articles, he joined by the gazetted officer, panchas and his staff, proceeded to the said land at 9.30 a.m. on the same day, where a person, on noticing these people, has started to run away. These people caught hold of that person, who is said to have confessed before the raiding team that he is the present petitioner cultivating the said land and that he has grown ganja plants there without any license or permission. After inspection, these people noticed several of the ganja plants grown up to a height of about 5 to 7 feet. In the presence of panchas, by drawing up panchanama, those plants were removed and weighed to know that they were weighing in total 15.5 kilograms. The seized goods and the accused were brought to the station wherein the complainant PSI lodged a complaint which was registered in respondent station Crime No.232/2019 against the present petitioner for the offence punishable under section 20(A) of NDPS Act. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that except the self serving complaint of the complainant, who incidentally is also a police officer, there are no other material to show that the accused has committed the alleged offence. He also says that there are no material to show that the alleged goods was ganja, that too, of commercial quality. However, stating that no recovery is required to be made at the instance of the petitioner, who is a poor farmer, the learned counsel submits that his continuation in judicial custody is not warranted. 4. He also says that there are no material to show that the alleged goods was ganja, that too, of commercial quality. However, stating that no recovery is required to be made at the instance of the petitioner, who is a poor farmer, the learned counsel submits that his continuation in judicial custody is not warranted. 4. Learned High Court Government Pleader, reiterating the contents of his statement of objections, stated that the alleged offence is heinous in nature, as such, the petitioner does not deserve to be enlarged on bail. 5. The complainant claims that joined by raiding team he has conducted a raid on the land of the petitioner wherein he noticed the growing of cannabis by the petitioner. According to the complainant, when weighed they were in total 15.5 kilograms. Though it is taken that 15.5 kilograms of ganja plants were said to have been seized from the spot, but how much of it was actually falling within the definition of ganja under NDPS Act is a question to be considered in due course. Even according to the prosecution, the continuation of accused/petitioner in judicial custody is not required for any investigation purpose. The apprehension of the prosecution that the accused may flee from justice can be checked by imposing reasonable conditions. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The Criminal Petition is allowed. The petitioner be enlarged on bail in FIR (Crime) No.232/2019 of Basavana Bagewadi Police Station for the offence punishable under section 20(A) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, subject to the following conditions that: (i) The accused/petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.40,000/- with two local solvent sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the enlarging Court. (ii) The accused/petitioner to give in writing about the change in his address, if any, to the trial Court as and when such change occurs and obtain acknowledgement in that regard. (iii) The accused/petitioner shall appear before the Court on all the dates of hearing. (iv) The accused/petitioner shall not hamper or tamper the prosecution witnesses and documents in any manner.