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

2022 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 37738

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

DHARWAD BENCH

DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF AUGUST 2022

BEFORE

THE HON9BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

CRIMINAL PETITION No.101982/2022

BETWEEN:

SRI. DONGRISAB S/O BABASAB

@ BAVASAB ARAMANI,

AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: COLLIE,

R/O.SIDDAPUR VILLAGE,

TQ.BILAGI, DIST.BAGALKOTE.

...PETITIONER

(BY SHRI SHIVAKUMAR S.BADAWADAGI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,

THROUGH BILAGI POLICE STATION,

NOW REPRESENTED BY

STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

HIGH COURT OF KARANATAKA,

DHARWAD, BENCH AT DHARWD.

... RESPONDENT

(BY SHRI PRASHANTH V. MOGALI, HCGP)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC.439 OF THE

CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE READ WITH SECTION 37 OF

THE NARCOTIC DRUGS AND PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES ACT

SEEKING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN SPECIAL

CASE

NO.20/2022

(CRIME

NO.6/2022

OF

BILAGI

POLICE

STATION)

REGISTERED

FOR

THE

OFFENCES

PUNISHABLE

U/SEC.20(a), 20(B) (i), 20(B) (ii) (C) OF THE NARCOTIC

2

DRUGS AND PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES ACT, 1985, PENDING

ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,

BAGALKOTE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS

DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

This petition is filed by accused under Section 439 of

the

Code

of

Criminal

Procedure,

1973

(hereinafter

referred to as the 8Cr.P.C.9, for brevity) read with Section

37 of The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act

seeking bail in Bilagi Police Station Crime No.6/2022

registered for the offences punishable under Sections

20(a),

20(b)(i),

20(b)(ii)(C)

of

the

Narcotic

Drugs

and

Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to

as 8NDPS Act9, for brevity), pending in Special Case

No.20/2022, on the file of learned Prl. District and

Sessions Judge, Bagalakote.

2.

The case of the prosecution is that, one Sri S.S.

Kamatagi, Police Inspector, Bilagi Police Station, has

lodged complaint contending that, on 09.01.2022 at about

3

2:30 pm, when he was in the police station, he received

credible information that a person has cultivated and

stored ganja in his land and selling the same for his

benefit. In pursuance of the said information, the

complainant secured panch witnesses, Gazetted Officer

and after obtaining permission from his Higher Officer

went

to

the

said

land

and

apprehended

the

petitioner/accused. During enquiry, the petitioner has

admitted that he has cultivated the ganja for selling the

same. Upon search, it was found that the accused has

stored 162kgs of ganja in 7 bundles and 25kg of ganja in

a manure bag and 10kg 600g of dried leaves. Thereafter,

the complainant has taken the samples and seized the

remaining ganja under panchanama in the presence of the

panchas and arrested the petitioner/accused and lodged

the complaint. On the basis of the said complaint, a case

came to be registered in Crime No.6/2022 in Bilagi Police

Station.

The

accused,

who

is

arrested,

has

been

remanded

to

judicial

custody.

The

Police

after

investigation filed charge sheet. The petitioner/accused

4

filed bail application in Crl.Misc. No.229/2022 and the

same came to be rejected by the learned Principal District

and

Sessions

Judge,

Bagalkote,

by

order

dated

30.04.2022. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court

seeking bail.

2.

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel

appearing for the petitioner and the learned High Court

Government Pleader for the respondent-State.

3.

It would be the contention of the learned

counsel

for

the

petitioner

that,

whatever

seized

is

cannabis plants which attracts an offence under Section

20(b)(i) of NDPS Act. It is his further submission that,

the entire seized material does not come under the

definition of <ganja= as provided under Section 2(iii)(b)

of NDPS Act. It is his submission that, the Investigating

agency has not separated the flowering or fruiting tops of

cannabis plants to say it is the ganja. The entire seeds,

leaves and stem have been weighed. It is his further

submission that what has been seized is a cannabis plant

5

and not ganja alone. He placed reliance on the decision

of the this Court in the case of Srinivasalu v. State of

Karnataka reported in 2019 SCC Online Kar 2711. It is

his further submission that the offence which is attracted

is Section 20(b)(i) of NDPs Act and the punishment for the

same is, imprisonment for a term which may extend to 10

years and shall also be liable to fine which may extend to

Rs.1,00,000/-. As charge-sheet is filed and investigation

is over, the petitioner is not required for any custodial

interrogation. With this he prayed to allow the petition.

4.

Per contra, learned High Court Government

Pleader would contend that what has been seized from the

possession of the accused is a commercial quantity of

ganja and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for

grant of bail as punishment prescribed for the same is

imprisonment for life for a term not les than 10 years but

which may extent to 20 years and shall also be liable to

with fine which shall not be less than Rs.1,00,000/- but

which may extend to Rs.2,00,000/-. It is his further

6

submission that if the petitioner is granted bail, he will

involve in commission of similar of

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
whatsapp-icon Back to top