The central legal point established in the judgment is that the grant of anticipatory bail under the NDPS act is influenced by factors such as the quantity of seized drugs, the accused's criminal history, and the accused's willingness to cooperate with the investigation and court proceedings.

JUDGMENT

Mohammad Nawaz, J. - Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and the learned HCGP for respondent-State and perused the material on record.

2. This petition is filed by accused no.2 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. to enlarge him on anticipatory bail in Crime No.31/2020 of Sirsi Town Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(B) and 8(c) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances act,1985,(herein after referred as 'NDPS act').

3. The case of the prosecution is that on receiving a credible information that two persons are involved in selling ganja, in the forest area, near Bhimangudda cross, Sirsi-Siddhapura road, Police Sub-inspector attached to Sirsi town Police station along with his staff and panchas went to the spot and noticed the two accused selling ganja to the customers. One of the accused viz., petitioner, ran away seeing the Police and the other accused was apprehended. Two bags, one containing 512 grams of ganja, approximately valued at Rs.7,500/- and another bag containing 1,419 grams, approximately valued at Rs.20,500/-were seized.

4. It is alleged that the petitioner was in possession of the white colour bag, which contained 1,419 grams of ganja and on seeing the Police he threw the bag and ran away.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that there is lapse in the procedure followed by the complainant while conducting the seizure and there is violation of Section 42(i) of the NDPS act, as the credible information received has not been reduced into writing before proceeding to the spot. He has further contended that the sample has been taken only from one bag and thereafter, the alleged ganja from both the bags has been mixed and packed. He further contends that there are no independent witnesses taken as panch witnesses, at the time of conducting seizure panchanama, though there was enough time to secure them. He further contends that only on the basis of the statement of accused no.1, the petitioner has been named in the First Information Report. He submits that petitioner is innocent and he has been implicated in a false case. Further, he submits that accused no.1 who was arrested was granted bail and subsequently, he expired.

6. Learned HCGP sought to reject the petition contending that the investigation is still in progress and petitioner has been absconding and therefore, in the event of grant of any relief to him, he would not co-operate with the investigation and he may repeat similar offence.

7. according to prosecution, when the Police went to the spot after receiving the credible information about two persons indulged in selling ganja, one of the accused ran away throwing a white colour bag. They apprehended accused no.1 and from his possession, a red colour bag was seized, which contained about 512 grams of ganja approximately valued at Rs.7,500/-. Further, the white colour bag contained a blue packet which contained 1,419 grams of ganja. as could be seen from the mahazar drawn, it is on the basis of the confession statement of accused no.1, petitioner has been arraigned as accused No.2. Further, the ganja said to have been seized from the two bags includes leaves, flower and seeds which totally weighed 1.961Kgs of ganja. It is not forthcoming as to what is the exact quantity of ganja seized.

8. The involvement of the petitioner has to be established in due course. No previous bad antecedents have been brought to the notice of the Court. Even otherwise, the seized ganja is not of commercial quantity. Petitioner has undertaken to appear before the investigating officer and to co-operate with investigation and also to regularly appear before the trial Court. Hence, without expressing any view on the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the relief sought by the petitioner can be granted by imposing suitable conditions. accordingly, the following:

ORDER

Petition is allowed.

The petitioner/accused No.2 shall be enlarged on bail in the e