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

2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 22793

KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
MOHAMMAD NAWAZ, J
SRI GOVINDARAJU – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 10372 OF 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI. SHRIDHARA K
For the Respondents: SRI R RANGASWAMY

Court granted bail considering non-commercial quantity of narcotics and similar circumstances as another accused, ensuring stringent conditions to prevent flight and witness tampering.

Headnote:(A) NDPS Act, 1985 - Section 20(b)(ii)

(C) - Bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C - The petitioner, accused No.1, challenged the refusal of bail on the grounds that he is similarly positioned to another accused who was granted bail by the Sessions Court due to non-commercial quantity of narcotics and completed investigation. (Paras 2-8)

(B) Bail - The court considers the factors that the petitioner was not required for further interrogation and that stringent conditions can be imposed to mitigate risks of flight along with maintaining justice. (Paras 9-10)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner is accused of possessing a specific quantity of ganja and seeks bail after another accused in the case was granted bail under similar circumstances.

Findings of Court:
Considering the similar conditions, the bail is granted with specific conditions to ensure compliance and prevent tampering with witnesses.

Issues: The core issue addresses the determination of bail eligibility based on the nature of offense and existing circumstances of the accused.

Ratio Decidendi: The court determines that the similarity in circumstances regarding the quantity of narcotics and completed investigation warrants bail, supplemented with strict conditions to alleviate flight risks.

Result: Petition is allowed.

Table of Content
1. allegations against petitioner involve drug possession. (Para 2 , 3 , 5)

ORAL ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for petitioner, learned HCGP for the state and perused the material on record.

2. A case in Crime No. 60/2025 of Kodihalli Police Station, Ramanagara is registered against accused Nos.1 and 2, for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(c) of the NDPS Act, 1985 , on a complaint lodged by the CPI, Kanakapura Circle, Ramanagara. Petitioner is arraigned as accused No.1.

3. It is alleged that a credible information was received on 12.05.2025 at about 09.30 a.m. that two persons are trying to sell ganja, near Puttadasadoddi Village, Huli Naganna Swami Temple, as such, the Police along with a Gazetted Officer and Panchas went to the spot and apprehended accused Nos.1 and 2. From accused No.1, 2 kg 180 grams of ganja and from accused No.2, 2 kg 240 grams of ganja was seized. Both the accused were taken into police custody and further, 14 kgs 290 grams of ganja was recovered at their instance, kept in plastic bags, concealed in bushes.

4. It is further alleged that on 17.05.2025 accused No.4 was arrested and MDMA ecstasy pills and ganja was recovered from the said accused.

5. It is the case of prosecution that accused Nos.1 and 2 were selling ganja to accused Nos.3 to 5 and the said accused were selling ganja to the public in small plastic covers.

6. Charge sheet is filed against accused Nos. 1 to

5 for the offence punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(A), 20(b)(ii)(B) and 22(a) of the NDPS Act, showing accused Nos.3 and 5 as absconding.

7. As per prosecution, from the petitioner, initially

2 kg 180 grams of ganja was seized and later at the instance of both accused Nos.1 and 2, 14 kgs 290 grams of ganja was seized.

8. Allegations against Accused Nos.1 and 2 are same. It is submitted that accused No. 2 has been enlarged on bail by the Sessions Court. A copy of the order passed in Crl.Misc.No.740/2025 dated 23.08.2025 is furnished. Learned sessions Judge, considering that the ganja seized is not a commercial quantity and that investigation has been completed and charge sheet is filed, has enlarged accused No.2 on bail. The reasons would hold good for the petitioner as well, as he is similarly placed as accused No.2. Petitioner is not required for further interrogation.

9. Learned HCGP contended that petitioner is from Tamil Nadu and therefore, if he is released on bail, he may flee from justice and commit similar offences.

10. The apprehension of the prosecution can be taken care of by imposing stringent conditions.

Accordingly, the following:

ORDER

i. Petition is allowed.

ii. Petitioner/accused No.1 in Crime No.60/2025 of Kodihalli Police Station, Ramanagara shall be enlarged on bail, subject to following conditions:

1. He shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only), with two sureties, out of which one shall be local surety, to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.

2. He shall furnish proof of his residential address and shall inform the Court, if there is change in the address.

3. He shall not directly or indirectly tamper with the prosecution witnesses.

4. He shall not indulge himself in committing any offence.

5. He shall appear before the trial Court regularly on all dates of hearing.

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