Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 149 (KAR)

Ajin K. G. Vargese v. State of Karnataka

2021-01-25

MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

body2021
ORDER : Mohammad Nawaz, J. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for petitioner and learned HCGP for respondent - State. 2. This petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr. P.C. by accused No. 3 praying to enlarge him on bail in Crime No. 125/2020 of Soladevanahalli Police Station, registered for offences under Sections 8(c), 20(b), 22(b), 22(c) of NDPS Act, 1985. 3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 28.07.2020 the respondent - Police received credible information that in flat No. S-1, 3rd Floor, Platinum Enclave Phase-I, Chikkabanavara, Bengaluru, persons belonging to the native of Kerala have stored drugs. Further that, they used to bring contrabands like LSD strips, MDMA crystal, ecstasy tablets and ganja from foreign countries through post and kept in their house with an intention to sell the same to the customers. Immediately, a raid was conducted and on search, the police found LSD strips and MDMA crystal in the said house. The same was seized by drawing a mahazar. It is alleged that from the possession of present petitioner namely accused No. 3 ganja weighing 5 kgs. including its leaves, stems, seeds etc., was seized. 4. The learned Counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. The contraband, which is seized does not belong to the petitioner and he was not residing in the house from where contraband articles are seized. The weight of ganja alleged to have been seized from petitioner is not a commercial quantity and therefore, Section 37 of NDPS Act is not applicable. He submits that Co-ordinate Bench has granted bail to accused No. 4. There are no bad antecedents against the petitioner. He is ready and willing to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Accordingly, seeks to allow the petition. 5. Learned HCGP has vehemently opposed grant of bail to the petitioner contending that from the possession of accused Nos. 1 to 4 contraband drugs, which were concealed in the house have been seized. He submits that all the accused are drug peddlers and the accused persons were in conscious possession of the said drugs, which are seized. The arrested accused were dealing in drugs at the instance of absconding accused namely Dheeraj and Abhay. 1 to 4 contraband drugs, which were concealed in the house have been seized. He submits that all the accused are drug peddlers and the accused persons were in conscious possession of the said drugs, which are seized. The arrested accused were dealing in drugs at the instance of absconding accused namely Dheeraj and Abhay. He further submits that the offences alleged are serious in nature and accordingly, seeks to reject the petition. 6. I have perused the material on record. The case of prosecution is that on receiving a credible information, the complainant along with his staff and panchas raided the flat, from where they apprehended four accused persons including the petitioner herein and seized the contraband. It is alleged that 5 kgs. of ganja including its stem, leaves, seeds was seized from the petitioner. 7. According to the prosecution the petitioner was in contact with other accused and he was helping them to weigh the ganja and put it in small packs and taking commission from them. From the material on record, at this stage it cannot be said that petitioner was residing in the said flat, from where the alleged drugs have been seized. As far as petitioner is concerned, it is the specific case of prosecution that 5 kgs. of ganja was seized from him. Hence, it cannot be said at this stage that the petitioner was in conscious possession of drugs concealed by other accused persons. The seized ganja from the possession of present petitioner is not a commercial quantity. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P No. 7132/2020 c/w Crl.P No. 4250/2020 has enlarged accused No. 4 on bail, while rejecting the prayer of accused No. 2 on the ground that he was in possession of commercial quantity of drugs. The petitioner herein has undertaken to furnish local surety. 8. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner can be released on bail by imposing suitable conditions. Accordingly the following, ORDER Petition is allowed. Petitioner/accused No. 3 in Crime No. 125/2020 of Soladevanahali Police station, Bengaluru now pending on the file of XXXII Addl. The petitioner herein has undertaken to furnish local surety. 8. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner can be released on bail by imposing suitable conditions. Accordingly the following, ORDER Petition is allowed. Petitioner/accused No. 3 in Crime No. 125/2020 of Soladevanahali Police station, Bengaluru now pending on the file of XXXII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge (NDPS), Bengaluru for offences under Sections 8(c), 20(b), 22(b), 22(c) of NDPS Act, 1985, shall be enlarged on bail, subject to following conditions :- (1) Petitioner/accused No. 3 shall execute a personal bond in a sum of ` 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two sureties for likesum to the satisfaction of the trial Court, out of them one surety shall be a local surety. (2) Petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence directly or indirectly. (3) Petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without prior per mission. (4) Petitioner shall mark his attendance before the jurisdiction police on 1st of every month in between 10.00 a.m and 5.00 p.m. till the trial is completed or until further orders. (5) Petitioner shall not indulge in similar type of criminal activities. If he again indulges in similar type of criminal activities or violates any of the above condition, the trial Court is at liberty to cancel the bail.