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

2022 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 61879

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

BEFORE

THE HON9BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR

CRIMINAL PETITION No.9450/2022

BETWEEN:

SRI. THAHA UMMER

S/O UMMAR

AGED 38 YEARS

RESIDING AT PADIKKA MANNI HOUSE

KOOTILANGADI, MALAPPURAM

KERALA

...PETITIONER

(BY SRI. VIVEK .S. REDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR

SRI. SHAIK ISMAIL ZABIULLA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

UNION OF INDIA

NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU

BANGALORE ZONAL UNIT

NO.7/1-2, PRIYANK VILAS,

RAMANNA GARDEN, BAGLUR MAIN ROAD

KATTIGENAHALLI, YELAHANKA

BENGALURU-560 063 ... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. BALAKRISHNA. M.R., CGSC)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION

439 OF CR.P.C, PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER

ON BAIL IN CR.NO.48/1/11/2022/BZU REGISTERED BY

NCB POLICE, BENGALURU ZONAL UNIT, BENGALURU FOR

THE ALLEGED OFFENCE P/U/S 8(c) R/W 22(b), 23(c), 27A,

28 AND 29 OF N.D.P.S. ACT PENDING ON THE FILE OF

XXXIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE

AND SPECIAL JUDGE(NDPS), CCH-33, BENGALURU.

2

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD

AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 29.10.2022, COMING

ON FOR 8PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER9 THIS DAY, THE

COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - (!) (!) (!) The document notes Clonazepam is a banned narcotic drug under the NDPS Act and that the parcel was opened in presence of witnesses, with drugs found and weighed. (!) (!) (!) - (!) (!) The court discusses the mandate of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, stating offences are cognizable and non-bailable, and addresses the burden on the petitioner to disprove the case, concluding bail at this stage is not warranted. (!) (!) (!) - (!) (!) The court concludes there is no material evidence to establish innocence and accordingly dismisses the bail petition. (!) (!)

What is the bail jurisdiction under NDPS Act in this case?

What is the court's stance on Standing Order compliance and sample quantity for testing?

What are the grounds for dismissing the bail petition in this NDPS case?


The petitioner/Accused No.1 has filed this

petition under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for enlarging

him on bail in Narcotic Control Bureau (for short,

8NCB9) Crime No.48/1/11/2022/BZU registered by

NCB,

Bengaluru

Zonal

Unit,

for

the

offences

punishable under Sections 8(c) read with Sections

22(b), 23(c), 27-A, 28 & 29 of Narcotic Drugs

Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, 8NDPS

Act9), pending on the file of XXXIII Additional City

Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge (NDPS)

CCH-33, Bengaluru.

2.

The brief factual matrix leading to the case

are that, on 07.05.2022 a reliable information was

received by complainant, regarding the suspicious

parcel having Way Bill No, 1826193810 laying at DHL

Express (India) Pvt. Ltd., Express Cargo Terminal, No.

3

C 19, North Cargo Road, Kempegowda International

Airport, Bengaluru 3 560 300 and it was suspected to

be containing Clonazepam Tablets, which is covered

under NDPS Act.

Then

after

taking

necessary

instructions in writing from the superintendent of NCB

at Bengaluru Zonal Unit, the Investigating Officer

along with his team reached the DHL Express (India)

Pvt. Ltd., Express Cargo Terminal No.C-19, North

Cargo

Road,

Kempegowda

International

Airport,

Bengaluru and a parcel was found to be booked by

Sri. Ajmal Nanath Valiyatt, son of Haris Nanath

Valiyatt, resident of Nanath valiyatt House, Melmuri,

Malappuram, Kerala and was addressed to one Sri

Zainul Abid Mannan Paramban, Al Maddena Sweets,

Halaga Vegitables Market, Near Shamaisi Warehouse,

PO Box Number 6641, Jeddh, K.S.A Jeddah, Saudi,

Arabia. Then after following the procedures as per

law,

357

grams

of

Clonazepam

Tablets

(a

psychotropic substance under the provision of NDPS

Act) was seized from that parcel from the said Cargo

4

and seizure mahazar was also drawn at the spot on

07.05.2022. It is further alleged that four summons

have been issued to the present petitioner/Accused

No.1 for his appearance for interrogation and

subsequently, the present petitioner/accused was

arrested on 25.08.2022 and after interrogation, he

was produced before the Court and then he was

remanded to judicial custody.

3.

The petitioner has approached the learned

Sessions Judge/Special Judge seeking regular bail in

Criminal Misc. No.8757/2022 and that bail petition

came to be rejected. Hence, he is before this Court.

4.

Heard the arguments advanced by Sri.

Vivek S. Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the

petitioner/Accused No.1 and Sri. M.R. Balakrishna,

the Central Government Standing Counsel ( 8CGSC9

for short9) for the Respondent-NCB. Perused the

records.

5

5.

Learned counsel for the petitioner/Accused

No.1 would contend that the petitioner is innocent

and he is working as a medical items supplier, but not

an exporter. He would also contend that, Rivotril-2

Tables of 2244 were seized when it is alleged that

they were being transported in postal cover. It is

asserted that, there were six bottles as per case of

prosecution and all the tablets were mixed together

and common sample was taken by the raiding party

and though they had taken DD Kits, no instant test

was conducted at the spot. He would also contend

that, the test report would disclose that the sample

was weighing 4.2 grams. But, as per the Standing

Order, minimum 5 grams were required to be taken

as sample for testing and it is violation of the

Standing Order. He would also contend that,

percentage of the Clonazepam Tablets is also not

stated in the report and Rivotril-2 tables are not

banned and what is banned is Clonazepam Tablets.

He would contend that there is no proper drawing of

6

samples and results are also doubtful and when there

is no proper procedure being followed as laid down in

the Standing Order, the petitioner is entitled for bail.

Further, in support of his contention he has placed a

decision of Telengana High Court in Criminal

Petition No.4428/2022 [Baba Sow Chandekar

and Another Vs. The State of Telangala].

6.

Per contra, the learned CGSC for the

re

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