The prosecution has preferred the subject criminal petition

calling in question the order dated 04-04-2022 passed by the

XXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge & Special Judge

(NDPS), Bangalore in Special C.C.No.271 of 2020 relaxing bail

conditions earlier imposed.

2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition, as

borne out from the pleadings, are as follows:-

The petitioner receives information that a parcel at DHL

Express India Private Limited is suspected to contain narcotics

drugs or suspicious contraband, pursuant to which, team of the

petitioner reaches the office of DHL Express India Private

3

Limited at Bangalore and conducts a search. After seizing all the

materials on 23-01-2020 the team recorded voluntary statement

of accused No.2 one Faiz.K who at the time of giving statement

brings in the name of the respondent/accused No.3 that he had

booked the parcel and was in contact with the respondent on

WhatsApp

calls/chat.

Accused

No.2

gave

the

voluntary

statement

to

the

petitioner

after

having

been

granted

anticipatory bail with a direction to appear before the

Investigating Officer. On three occasions accused No.2 had

taken the name of the respondent/accused No.3 that it is his

parcel which ultimately did not reach the destination and,

therefore, accused 2 and 3 were in constant contact.

3. The statement of the respondent/accused No.3 could

not be recorded despite three notices under Section 67 of the

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (8the Act9

for short) and later, the respondent appears to have filed and

was granted an anticipatory bail with a condition that he should

appear before the Investigating Officer once in 15 days and shall

4

cooperate with the investigation. The allegation in this regard is

that the respondent has not turned up for investigation even

after directions being issued intermittently. Later it transpires

that an arrest warrant (NBW) was issued against the

respondent/accused No.3, but it could not be served as he was

staying in Dubai. Therefore, a look-out circular was opened by

the Zonal Unit of the petitioner against the respondent/accused

No.3. On 10.02.2022 when accused No.3 landed in Bangalore,

he was detained by the Immigration Bureau on account of look-

out circular and handed over to the petitioner. After the

respondent/accused No.3 was handed over to the petitioner, he

was produced before the Court on 10-02-2022 which has given 5

days for his examination and recording of statements by the

NCB.

4. The allegation of the petitioner is that the respondent/

accused No.3 has not co-operated with the investigation and

refused to sign any statement given by him. After his arrest as

aforesaid, the respondent/accused No.3 files an application

5

under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. seeking enlargement on bail.

The petitioner filed its objections and resisted the bail

application. The learned Sessions Judge by his order dated

21-02-2022

grants

bail

imposing

certain

conditions.

On

04-03-2022

the

respondent/accused

No.3

files

an

application under Section 439(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C. seeking

relaxation of bail conditions 1 and 6. Again the petitioner

contested the matter and resisted any relaxation of bail

conditions. The learned Sessions Judge by his order dated

04-04-2022

allows

the

application

filed

by

the

respondent/accused No.3 under Section 439 (1)(b) of the Cr.P.C.

and grants relaxation of bail conditions 1 and 6 which were that

he shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without prior

permission and that he shall surrender the passport before the

Court. It is this order of relaxation of bail conditions dated

04-04-2022 that drives the petitioner/prosecution to this Court

calling in question the said order.

6

5. Heard Sri Madhukar M. Deshpande, learned counsel

appearing for the petitioner and Sri M.Binu, learned counsel

appearing for the respondent/accused No.3.

6. The learned counsel Sri Madhukar M. Deshpande