Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1223 (KAR)

Sathya Pradhan v. State of Karnataka

2022-09-16

K.NATARAJAN

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. This petition is filed by the accused No.1 under Sec. 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for granting regular bail in Crime No.270/2021 registered by the Indiranagara Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sec. 20C of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State. 3. The case of the prosecution is that on a suo-moto complaint of P.S.I of Indiranagara police station that on 30/12/2021 at about 02.05 p.m. they have received credible information that some persons selling ganja by standing near Domalur fly-over. By obtaining permission from the ACP he along with his team went to the spot. They caught hold of accused No.1-petitioner herein and another person ran away from the spot and on enquiring the petitioner he revealed his name and at the instance of petitioner the police said to have seized 32 kgs 284 grams of Ganja. The petitioner was arrested and sent to judicial custody. The petitioner approached the Sessions Court for granting bail, which came to be rejected. Hence, he is before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that, the petitioner is innocent of the offences alleged and he is falsely implicated. Though he was arrested in Crime No.34/2021 in the last year, he was released on bail on 3/12/2021. After knowing the fact that the petitioner has released from the jail the police have falsely implicated in this case. He was in custody for 9 months. He is ready to abide conditions which is imposed by this Court. He also contended that there was delay in sending the FIR to the Court, though the FIR registered at 5.30 p.m. the same was sent to the Court on next day at 11.30 a.m. Therefore, there is a chance of false implication of the accused in the case. Hence, he prayed for allowing the petition by granting bail. 5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader has objected the petition and contended that he is a habitual offender. He was already in jail for some other case registered by the Hosakote P.S. and there were more than 13 cases registered against him. In spite of the those cases, he again committed the similar offence. 5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader has objected the petition and contended that he is a habitual offender. He was already in jail for some other case registered by the Hosakote P.S. and there were more than 13 cases registered against him. In spite of the those cases, he again committed the similar offence. If he granted bail, there is every possibility of committing the same crime. He is from Orissa and residing in Bengaluru. Hence, he prayed for dismissing the petition. 6. Having heard the arguments and perusal of the records, it reveals of course, after receiving information the police have obtained permission from the higher officers and went to the spot and offended the petitioner. They have seized 32 kgs and 284 grams of Ganja from the accused-petitioner herein. Another accused person was ran away from the spot and still he is absconding. The fact that the petitioner is already involved in Crime No.34/2021 registered by the Hosakote Police Station and Sessions Judge said to be granted bail on the ground that the Ganja seized by the petitioner is 2 kgs. However, they recovered the Ganja from other accused persons is more than 30 kgs. The petitioner herein was granted bail from the Sessions Judge and during the bail period, he again involved in the similar crime registered by the Indiranagar Police Station. Therefore, contention of the petitioner that the Hosakote Police was falsely implicated the petitioner through Indiranagara police that too seizing 32 kgs of huge Ganja from the custody of the petitioner cannot be accepted. Though the investigation has completed and charge sheet has been filed, the petitioner is involving in similar crime and he is said to be from Orissa. Therefore, if he released on bail again there is every chance of committing similar offences and there are chances of tampering of the evidences and absconding from the case is never ruled out. Hence, bail petition of the petitioner is liable to be rejected. Accordingly, petition is dismissed.