SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Kar) 1403

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
MOHAMMAD NAWAZ, J.
R. Pranay Jain S/o M. Rajendra Jain - Appellant
Versus
State - Respondent
Criminal Petition No. 4561 of 2025
Decided On : 19-08-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Rakshith R.
For the Respondent: Madhukar Deshpande

Petitioner denied bail due to substantial evidence of involvement in drug trafficking and the weight of the entire seized mixture relevant for quantity classification under NDPS Act.

Headnote:(A) NDPS Act, 1985 - Sections 8(c), 22(c), 23(c), 27, 28, 29 - Bharat Chaudhary v. Union of India (SLP (Crl) 5703/2021) - Petitioner seeks bail for alleged involvement in commercial quantity drug trafficking - Arguments include that petitioner ordered parcel under another name and lack of evidence on exclusive possession - Investigation confirms order via email linked to petitioner; prima facie case established - Court denies bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. (Paras 3, 10, 12, 15)

(B) Evidence - The prosecution established a prima facie case against the petitioner through substantial evidence including email correspondence and transaction history - Petitioner’s claims of innocence found unconvincing - The weight of entire seized materials, not just narcotic content, is relevant for determining quantity classification under law. (Paras 12, 13, 14)

Facts of the case:
- On credible information, a parcel from Canada was seized containing narcotic drugs, addressed to another individual. Investigation linked petitioner to the order through recorded emails and transactions, raising concerns about potential future offenses.

Findings of Court:
- Sufficient evidence suggests active involvement of petitioner in trafficking drugs, and custody is necessary to prevent further offenses.

Issues: - Determination of drug possession and the admissibility of voluntary statements in establishing guilt.

Ratio Decidendi: - The court held that segmenting the mixture for quantity classification at this stage isn’t acceptable under the prevailing legal framework.

Result: - Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. investigation indicates links between petitioner and narcotics order. (Para 3 , 4 , 5)
2. defenses challenged by substantial evidence of drug orders. (Para 6 , 8 , 9)
3. whole mixture analyzed for legal classification of drugs. (Para 10 , 12 , 13 , 14)
4. bail denied due to established evidence and statutory provisions. (Para 15)

ORDER :

1. This petition under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 is preferred by the sole accused in NCB Crime No.48/1/19/2024/BZU registered by NCB, Bengaluru Zonal Unit, to enlarge him on bail.

2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing on both sides and perused the material on record.

3. Brief facts of the case:-

On 17.10.2024 at around 12.27 hours, a credible information was received from Special Intelligence and Investigation Branch, Airport and Air cargo complex through official mail that a shipment under AWB No.778447006060 suspected to be containing Narcotic Drug was lying at Fedex Express Cargo Terminal, KIAL Road, Devanahalli, Bengaluru, which was imported from Canada through Fedex Express, destined to one Mrs. Sunita. Based on the said information and as per the direction of the Superintendent, NCB, BZU, Bengaluru, a team was constituted consisting of Inspector and other officials who went to Fedex Express, Express Cargo Terminal equipped with drug detection kit, laptop, portable printer, digital weighing machine. Two persons were requested to act as independent witnesses for the purpose of search and seizure proceedings. The suspected parcel, which was found to be booked from ‘Mike Lisenchuk, R/o 2383, Hoover Rd, Campbell River BC CA V9H1C5, Canada BC’, addressed to one ‘Sunita A, 17-F, Ganapati Nagar Thalli Rd, Back Side seventh Day School, Hosur Krishna Giri, TN – 635 109’, was placed before the NCB team. On opening the brown colour rectangle cartoon Box, it was found to contain 51 golden color zipper Plastic pouches/sachets having colorful printing written as ‘Premium Lord Shiva Carts’ with photo of Lord Shiva on sachets / pouches. The Golden color pouches having specially printed in Black and white as ‘FUEL CANDY/HYBRID 1 gram Live Resin Vape Cartidge THC 71.80% TERPS 17.76%.’ A small resin substance was taken out and tested with field Drug Detection Kit which gave positive result for Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). All the pouches contained similar cartridge and similar substance, which totally weighed 850 grams including transparent plastic pouch. The said parcel were taken into possession under a panchnama. The email ID of the consignee was obtained, based on which the mobile number of the consignee R.Pranay Jain/petitioner was obtained.

4. Petitioner was apprehended on 12.12.2024. The voluntary statements of the petitioner and one Imthiyaz Basha were recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act. Petitioner was arrested for committing offences under Section 8(c), 22(c), 23(c), 27, 28 and 29 of NDPS Act.

5. The learned counsel has argued that, petitioner is totally innocent of the offences alleged against him. The parcel was not in his name, but in the name of one Sunita A. The alleged contraband was not seized from the exclusive possession of the petitioner, hence, there is no iota of evidence against the petitioner. He hails from a respectable family, he has no criminal history. His detention in custody has led to great hardship to his entire family, as he is the only earning member.

6. The learned counsel for petitioner further contended that the quantitative analysis of the sample was not carried out. The alleged contraband seized was a mixture of both, Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and TERPS, hence, for the purpose of quantitative analysis entire mixture cannot be taken into consideration. The Narcotic Drug or psychotropic substance which alone shall be taken into consideration but not the entire mixture, for the purpose of determining whether the substance seized constitute ‘small quantity’ or ‘commercial quantity’. The learned counsel relied on a decision of the Apex Court

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top