The court ruled that the accused, not having possession of seized contraband, were eligible for bail, given no evidence proved their guilt and statutory bail conditions were satisfied.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners Sri.Neelendra D.Gunde, Sri.Sabeel Ahmed, Sri.Vadiraj P.Vadavi, Sri.Rahul Shrikant Bhushi respectively and Sri.Abhishek Malipatil, learned HCGP for respondent in all the cases.

2. Crl.P.No.102262/2025 is filed by accused No.6, Crl.P.No.102321/2025 is filed by accused No.8, Crl.P.No.102459/2025 is filed by accused No.1 and Crl.P.No.102471/2025 is filed by accused No.3 respectively filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. [483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023] to grant bail in Crime No.110/2025 of Gangavathi Town Police station for the offences punishable under Section 20 (b)(ii)(B) 23(b)of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act-1985.

3. Brief facts of the prosecution case are as under:

On 28.05.2025, the PSI of Gangavathi town Police station, Gangavathi at about 9.30 a.m. when he was on patrolling duty, he received a credible information that some unknown persons who had come in two cars were attempting to sell ganja on the road in front of the ITI college, Gangavathi town. On receiving said information, the PSI along with his sub-staff i.e. panchs went to the spot, conducted a raid on the said persons and seized 1806 grams Hydro Ganga in two cars which was kept in the dicky worth Rs.18,06,000/- in the presence of panchs. They also seized eight mobile phones, two cars on the spot and thereafter registered a case against the petitioners and others. Based on the seizure mahazar and complaint, the SHO registered a case, leading to registration of FIR and investigation. Hence, these petitioners were remanded to judicial custody.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners are innocent of the alleged offences; they have not committed any offences; the police have not seized anything from the petitioners and the contraband was seized from the possession of accused Nos.2 and 5 respectively. The petitioners are no way concerned either to the cars or the ganja in question; petitioners are in judicial custody since the date of their arrest and they are ready to abide by any conditions which are to be imposed by this Court, and thus prayed for grant of bail.

5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State contended that there are reasonable grounds to believe that these petitioners are guilty of the alleged offences. The contraband seized is of intermediate quantity; if bail is granted, they may jump the bail conditions and would commit similar offences and tamper with prosecution witnesses, thus, prayed for rejection of petition.

6. Having heard on both side and on perusal of material available on record, it discloses that on 28.05.2025 at 2.45 p.m., the first informant and his sub-staff conducted a raid on these petitioners and others, and found 1806 grams of ganja worth Rs. 18,06,000/-, 8 mobile phones, two cars in the presence of panchas and gazetted officers. They arrested the petitioners, drew up the panchnama and lodged the complaint.

7. On perusal of the Seizure Panchnama and report of complainant, nowhere the first informant has stated that ganja was seized from the possession of these petitioners, but it was seized from the dicky of cars, which belongs to accused Nos.2 and 5 respectively. It shows that these petitioners are not owners of cars seized in this case.

8. The learned counsel for petitioners contended that, the cars are not belonging to the petitioners and nothing is recovered from the possession of petitioners and therefore, rigours of Section 37 of NDPS Act is not applicable to the case on hand and petitioners are not an habitual offenders.

9. At this juncture it is relevant to refer to Section 37 of the NDPS