Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1146 (KAR)

Jareena v. State of Karnataka

2022-09-02

P.N.DESAI

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. This petition is filed under Sec. 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (for short hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.') seeking to enlarge the petitioner who is arraigned as accused No.3, on regular bail, in Crime No.83/2022 of Gandhi Gunj Police Station, Bidar District registered for the offences punishable under Ss. 20(b) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985( for short 'NDPS Act') pending on the file of Prl. District & Sessions Court, Bidar District, Bidar. 2. It is the case of the prosecution that based on the credible information that three women near Railway Station Gandhi Gunj Yard, Bidar are illegally selling ganja, the Sub-Inspector of Police after taking permission from his higher ups alongwith Tahsildhar and panchas proceeded to the said place on 9/6/2022 and found that three women were selling ganja in Irani area and they arrested them and they recovered Rs.1,500.00 cash and 5kg and 60grams ganja worth Rs.10,000.00 from them and produced them before the Court. The bail petition filed by the petitioner is rejected by the Sessions Court. Hence, this petition. 3. Heard Shri. Siddartha Marlingappa and Sri. Santosh Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Gururaj V.Hasilkar, learned HCGP for the respondent/State and perused the material on record. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner is arrested on 16/7/2022 only on the ground of voluntary statement of the co-accused; the petitioner is a married women and having children; the petitioner is having ailments like B.P. and the offence alleged is not punishable either with death or imprisonment for life. The ganja said to have been seized is not of commercial quantity and the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. Hence, prayed to allow the petition. 5. Against this, learned HCGP stated that the petitioner is involved in illegal transportation of ganja and if the petitioner is released on bail, she may abscond and she may repeat the offence. Investigation is going on and she may tamper the prosecution witnesses. Hence, prayed to reject the petition. 6. I have perused the material placed before the Court. The allegation against the petitioner is that she was selling the ganja. There is no material at this stage to show that the accused were asked to search by an Gazetted officer. Investigation is going on and she may tamper the prosecution witnesses. Hence, prayed to reject the petition. 6. I have perused the material placed before the Court. The allegation against the petitioner is that she was selling the ganja. There is no material at this stage to show that the accused were asked to search by an Gazetted officer. It is alleged that the petitioner was selling ganja in the public, but it is not forthcoming as to from where the said ganja is seized. There is no previous history of involvement of the petitioner of any such offence. Admittedly, the petitioner is a women and is having children. The alleged offence is not punishable either with death or imprisonment for life. The ganja seized is not of commercial quantity. Nature of ganja is also not forthcoming. 7. It is the settled principle of law that bail is a rule and rejection is an exception. While granting or rejecting the bail application, the Court will have to take into consideration, (1) the nature and seriousness of the offence; (2) character of the accused; (3) circumstances which are peculiar to accused; (4) reasonable probabilities of presence of the accused not being secured at trial; (5) reasonable apprehension of witnesses being tampered with; and (6) larger interest of public or the State and similar other considerations, which arise when a court is asked to admit the accused to bail in a non-bailable offence. 8. Therefore, in the light of these principles, if the materials placed before the Court are considered, it is evident that the other two accused are granted bail by this Court. The apprehension of the prosecution can be meted out by imposing reasonable conditions on the petitioner, as she has undertaken to co-operate with the investigation and furnish sureties. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: O R D E R The criminal petition filed under Sec. 439 of Cr.P.C. is allowed. The petitioner - accused No.3 Smt. Jareena (Zareena Banu), W/o Abbus Ali in Crime No.83/2022 of Gandhi Gunj Police Station, Bidar, on the file of Prl. District and Sessions Judge, at Bidar, registered for the offence punishable under Sec. 20 (b) of NDPS Act, shall be released on bail, subject to the following conditions. The petitioner - accused No.3 Smt. Jareena (Zareena Banu), W/o Abbus Ali in Crime No.83/2022 of Gandhi Gunj Police Station, Bidar, on the file of Prl. District and Sessions Judge, at Bidar, registered for the offence punishable under Sec. 20 (b) of NDPS Act, shall be released on bail, subject to the following conditions. i) The petitioner shall execute a self bond for Rs.1,00,000.00 (Rupees One Lakh only) with two sureties, in which one being local surety, for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. ii) The petitioner shall not try to tamper the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly. iii) The petitioner shall appear before the Court on all dates of hearing without fail as and when directed. iv) The petitioner shall mark her attendance before the jurisdictional Police/SHO once in 15 days, i.e., on alternative Sunday between 10.00 a.m. to 4.00 p.m. for a period of three months or till filing of the charge sheet whichever is earlier and shall co-operate in the investigation. v) The petitioner shall not involve in any criminal activities and shall not commit similar offences. vi) The petitioner shall furnish proof of her residential correct address to the investigating officer and shall inform the Court/Investigating Officer if there is any change in the address. vii) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without prior permission of Trial Court. In case if any of the conditions are violated, the prosecution is at liberty to move application for cancellation of bail.