IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
V Srishananda, J.
Adesh Jaiswal – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka By Marathahalli Police Station, Bengaluru, Represented By State Public Prosecutor, High Court Complex, Bengaluru-560001 – Respondent
Criminal Petition No. 888 of 2023
Decided On : 21-03-2023
NDPS Act - Bail Application - The court allowed the bail application of the petitioner, who was charged under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, after considering the quantity of seized ganja and the absence of criminal antecedents.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was arrested for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 22(C), 20(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act, 1985, after the police seized 1 kg 100 gms. of ganja from the petitioner and others near a bakery.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the seized ganja was of intermediary quantity, and therefore, the petitioner could be enlarged on bail by exercising the special powers vested in the court under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The court also imposed stringent bail conditions to address the prosecution's apprehensions.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail considering the quantity of seized ganja and the potential risk of repeating similar offences.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of the quantity of seized ganja as intermediary, which allowed the court to exercise its power under Section 439 Cr.P.C. to grant bail. The absence of criminal antecedents of the petitioner also played a significant role in the court's decision.
Final Decision: The court allowed the bail application, directing the petitioner to be enlarged on bail with stringent conditions.
JUDGMENT/ORDER
V Srishananda, J. - Heard Sri Raghunatha Gowda S., learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vishwamurthy, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.
2. This petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. with the following prayer:
'Wherefore, the above-named petitioner most respectfully prays that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Cr.No.290/2022 of Respondent -Marathahalli police for the offence punishable u/s. 20(ii)(B), 22(C), 8(c) of NDPS Act, 1985, pending on the file of XXXIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge at Bengaluru, (CCH: 33), in the interest of justice.'
3. Brief facts of the case are as under:
Police Inspector by name Sri B.S.Ashok, filed a report with Marathahalli Police on 07.12.2022 which was registered in Crime No.290/2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 22(C), 20(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
4. The gist of the report reveal that when the complainant was on duty, he received a credible information that somebody is selling the ganja to the prospective customers near Manikanta Bakery, 1st Cross, Manjunatha Layout, Marathahalli, and the same was intimated to the higher police officials and a raid team came to be formed comprising of the complainant, two independent panch witnesses, Gazetted Officer and sub-staff. As per the credible information they proceeded to the spot and caught hold of the petitioner and others. On enquiry with the group of persons, police were able to seize 1 kg 100 gms. of ganja and mobile phones and plastic carry bag. The petitioner was taken to custody and handed over to the Station House Officer along with other accused persons and seized the ganja. The Station House Officer, registered the case and arrested the petitioner and sent him to judicial custody. Thereafter, the petitioner applied for grant of bail which was turned down by the learned District Judge by order dated 11.01.2023 in Crl.Misc.No.12524/2022.
5. Thereafter, the petitioner is before this Court.
6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri Raghunatha Gowda S., vehemently contended that seized ganja is intermediary quantity and therefore, Section 37 of the NDPS is not applicable to the case on hand and the said aspect of the matter is not properly appreciated by the learned trial Judge while rejecting the bail application and sought for allowing the bail petition.
7. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader opposes the bail application stating that the seized ganja is to the tune of 1 kg. 100 gms. and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for grant of bail.
8. He also pointed out that if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, there is every possibility of petitioner repeating the similar offences and may not be available to the trial and may flee away from justice.
9. In view of the rival contentions of the parties, this Court perused the material on record meticulously.
10. Admittedly, the head of the raid party was able to seize the ganja from the custody of the group of persons who had assembled near Manikanta Bakery, 1st Cross, Manjunatha Layout, Marathahalli, to the tune of 1 kg. 100 gms. The head of the raid party was able to seize the mobile phones and plastic cover and other material objects.
11. Since the seized ganja is only to the tune of 1 kg. 100 gms., the same is to be termed as intermediary quantity as it is above the small quantity and less than the commercial quantity.
12. As rightly contended by Sri Raghunatha Gowda S., learned Counsel for the petitioner, only in respect of the commercial quantity, the hindrance as to the exercise of the powers under Section 439 Cr.P.C. as is contemplated under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, would be applicable and since the seized ganja is intermediary quantity, this Court can very well exercise its power under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
13. The petitioner is in custody on and from 12.12.2022 and since the ganja is already seized and in the absence of any crimi
The quantity of seized drugs and the absence of criminal antecedents are crucial factors in determining bail applications under the NDPS Act.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court can grant bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C without resorting to Section 37 of the NDPS act based on the interpretation of the seized....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that bail is a rule and rejection is an exception, and it should be granted after considering the nature and seriousness of the offence, the charac....
The court has the discretion to grant bail based on the quantity seized, absence of bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, and the health condition of the petitioner.
The quantity of seized drugs being a commercial quantity is a crucial factor in determining the grant of bail under the NDPS Act.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the quantity of the seized contraband and its classification as a commercial quantity under the NDPS Act influenced the court's decision in gr....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.