Back
2017 Supreme(Kar) 576
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
R.B. BUDIHAL, J.
Narayanaswamy & Others - Petitioners
Versus
State by Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau, Represented by Government Pleader, Bengaluru - Respondent
Criminal Petition No. 6754 of 2017
Decided On : 24-10-2017
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: R.V. Shivananda Reddy, B.S. Chandraiah
For the Respondent: K.N. Mohan
The court balanced the compliance with NDPS Act requirements and the nature of the alleged offences against the petitioners' entitlement to bail.
Headnote:
NDPS Act - Bail - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought bail for offences under the NDPS Act after being accused of carrying a large quantity of ganja. The prosecution alleged that the ganja was seized from the petitioners' possession and that the offences were serious in nature.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the seizure mahazar did not specify which part of the seized plants were weighed, and that the mandatory requirements of the NDPS Act were not fully complied with. It also noted that the alleged offences were not exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment for life.
Issues: The issues revolved around the compliance with the NDPS Act requirements, the nature of the alleged offences, and the petitioners' entitlement to bail.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the lack of specific allegations regarding compliance with the NDPS Act requirements and the nature of the alleged offences, and balanced these factors against the petitioners' entitlement to bail.
Final Decision: The petitioners were granted bail with specific conditions, including the execution of a personal bond, furnishing a surety, non-tampering with witnesses, regular court appearances, and cooperation with the investigating agency.
1. This petition is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking their release on bail for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c) r/w Section 20(b), 27A and 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985 registered in NCBF No.48/1/11/2017/BZU of respondent Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau, Bengaluru.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 18.7.2017 at about 6.30 hours complainant received credible information that three persons including one lady were waiting at the underpass of flyover at hoskote and they were carrying large quantity of ganja in bags and the complainant after obtaining the permission from Superintendent, NCB, Bengaluru Zonal Unit along with lady officer, carried all necessary equipment and came to said place along with two independent witnesses and conducted the search and seized the ganja totally weighing 60 kgs and drawn samples of 24 grams of ganja and brought the seized ganja along with accused persons and lodged the complaint, on the basis of which, case was registered for the above said offences.
3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 and also the learned Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in the seizure mahazar the seized material description is mentioned as ganja plants, which includes even roots and mud contained in the roots. It is not specifically mentioned as to which part of the said plants were weighed at the time of seizure mahazar. He has also submitted that mandatory requirement of NDPS Act were not complied with. Petitioners are innocent and there is a false implication in the said case. Hence, by imposing reasonable conditions, petitioners may be enlarged on bail.
5. Per contra, learned Special Public Prosecutor has submitted that as per the seizure mahazar flowering and fruiting tops of cannabis plants were seized from the possession of the petitioners. The matter is still under investigation. The alleged offences are serious in nature. At this stage, petitioners are not entitled to be granted with bail.
6. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and other materials placed on record, so also, considered the oral submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides at the bar.
7. In the complaint averments and other prosecution material there is no specific allegation that after receipt of credible information the complainant immediately reduced the same into writing in the station house diary to comply the requirement of Section 42 of the NDPS Act, which is mandatory. So far as conducting search of ganja is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that requirement of Section 50 of the NDPS Act is not complied with. However, Section 50 of the Act could be made applicable only in case of personal seizure of contraband material, but in this case, ganja was seized from the bag. As mentioned in the seizure mahazar the total quantity of the ganja seized is 60 kgs. So from each of the petitioners it is 20 kgs. No doubt, it is a commercial quantity as mentioned in the schedule to NDPS Act. However, the said material has been seized under the mahazar in the presence of panch witnesses and nothing further is to be seized from their possession. The petitioners have undertaken to abide by any reasonable conditions to be imposed by this Court. The alleged offences are not exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment for life.
8. Learned Special Public Prosecutor during the course of his arguments submitted that investigation is still going on, as such, petitioners cannot be considered for grant of bail. However, if presence of petitioners is required before the Investigating Officer, stringent conditions could be imposed while considering them for bail. Hence, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioners.
9. Accordingly, petition is a
