Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1078 (KAR)

Anis v. State of Karnataka

2022-08-16

SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

body2022
JUDGMENT Shivashankar Amarannavar, J. - This petition is filed by the sole accused under Section 439 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Cr.P.C., for brevity) seeking bail in Crime No. 63/2022 of CEN Crime Belagavi City Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the 'NDPS Act', for brevity). 2. The case of the prosecution is that, one Sri. Ningangouda A. Patil, Police Inspector, CEN Police Station, Belagavi has received credible information that one person near the old vegetable market with yellow red colour bag containing ganja and he is wearing a black shirt, blue jeans and the said inspector intimated the same to his higher authorities and secured his staff, Panchas, Assistant Drug Controller as a gazetted officer, weighing scale, etc., and proceeded in Government vehicle and went near vegetable market at 13:10 hours and kept watch in a vegetable shop and found one person of the same description who was standing in suspicious manner holding yellow red colour bag and they conducted the raid and caught hold him at 13:15 hours and he described his name and address and further discloses that he kept ganja in his bag. With his consent they searched the bag in the presence of the gazetted officer and found 1.5 kg ganja, containing ganja leaves, flowers, seeds and stems worth Rs. 30,000/- and they took up samples and seized them under Mahazar and arrested the said person and he is in judicial custody. The petitioner/accused filed Crl.Misc. No. 925/2022 seeking bail and the same came to be rejected by the learned II Additional District & Sessions Judge, Belagavi by order dated 11.07.2022. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court seeking bail. 3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State. 4. It would be the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the entire thing seized includes ganja leaves, flowers, seeds and stems and its' total weight is 1.5 kg. It is his submission that, as per the definition contained under Section 2(iii)(b) of NDPS Act, the seeds and leaves have to be excluded. It is his further submission that, the entire ganja seized taking into consideration the said definition will be less than the smaller quantity. It is his submission that, as per the definition contained under Section 2(iii)(b) of NDPS Act, the seeds and leaves have to be excluded. It is his further submission that, the entire ganja seized taking into consideration the said definition will be less than the smaller quantity. It is his further submission that, the entire material has been seized and therefore, the petitioner is not required for any custodial interrogation. With this, he prayed for allowing the petition. 5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader would contend that, the investigation is still in progress, the ganja being 1.5 kg which is intermediate quantity has been seized from the possession of this petitioner/accused. The petitioner/accused is required for custodial interrogation. If the petitioner is granted bail, he will hamper the investigation and tamper the prosecution witnesses and flee from justice and also involve in commission of similar offence. With this, he prayed to reject the petition. 6. Having regard to the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader, this Court has gone through the records. 7. The total quantity of ganja seized from the possession of the petitioner/accused is 1.5 kg. It includes seeds, leaves and stems. As per the definition of ganja contained under Section 2(iii)(b) of NDPS Act, the seeds and leaves have to be excluded. Therefore, at this stage it cannot be said that the ganja seized is more than small quantity. Even taking into consideration the quantity of the ganja seized is 1.5 kg which is little more than smaller quantity. As the contraband has been seized, the petitioner is not required for any custodial interrogation. The apprehension of the prosecution is that, if the petitioner is released on bail, he will hamper the investigation and tamper the prosecution witnesses can be met with by imposing stringent conditions. 8. In the facts and circumstances of the case and submission of the counsel, this Court is of the view that there are valid grounds for granting bail subject to stringent terms and conditions. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The petition filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. is allowed. Consequently, the petitioner/accused shall be released on bail in Crime No. 63/2022 of CEN Crime Belagavi City Police Station subject to the following conditions: i) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The petition filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. is allowed. Consequently, the petitioner/accused shall be released on bail in Crime No. 63/2022 of CEN Crime Belagavi City Police Station subject to the following conditions: i) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court. ii) The petitioner shall not indulge in hampering the investigation and tampering the prosecution witnesses. iii) The petitioner shall attend the Police Station concerned every Sunday between 10:00 a.m. and 06:00 p.m. and mark his presence for a period of two months or till filing of the final report, whichever is earlier. iv) The petitioner shall co-operate with the investigating officer and make himself available for interrogation whenever required. v) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any witness acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any Police Officer. vi) The petitioner shall not obstruct or hamper the police investigation and not to play mischief with the evidence collected or yet to be collected by the police.