IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 15405 OF 2025 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

SRI HIRITESH R S/O RAMESH AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS R/AT NO 1A2/14, NANDAGOPALASWAMI, 3RD ROAD, KAMBAM GRAM THENI DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU- 625516.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. BENIGN J.L. PRASAD, ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA by SANJEEVINI REPRESENTED BY J KARISHETTY Location: H igh SHO HEBBAGODI POLICE STATION Court of Karnataka INVESTIGATED BY CCB (ANW)

REPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU- 560 001.

2. SANTHOSH HOSPITAL HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.6/1, PROMENADE ROAD BEHIND COLES PARK, PULIKESHI NAGAR, FRAZER TOWN, BENGALURU- 560 005.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP FOR R1)

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF THE CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SECURE THE RECORDS IN SPL.C.NO.741/2024 ON THE FILE 8TH ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, AT BENGALURU QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN SPL.C.NO.741/2024 SO FAR AS PETITIONER IS CONCERNED, COPY OF THE ORDER SHEET THEREIN IS HEREWITH PRODUCED AT ANNX-A.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

ORAL ORDER

Heard the learned counsel Sri. Benign J.L. Prasad, appearing for the petitioner, Sri. Channappa Erappa, learned HCGP appearing for respondent No.1 and have perused the material on record.

2. The petitioner is before this Court, seeking the following prayer:

"(a) Secure the records in Spl. C No.741/2024 on the file 8^th Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, at Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 21(b), 22(b), 22(c), 22(A), 27(A), 27(B), 29 of Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 2001, Foreigners Act under section 14 and Sections 290 & 294 of IPC quash the entire proceedings in Spl.C No.732/2024 so far as petitioner is concerned, copy of the order sheet and charge sheet therein is herewith produced at Annexure-A and Annexure-F to meet the ends of justice.

(b) GRANT such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to grant to meet the ends of justice."

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the issue in the lis stands covered by the judgment rendered by this Court in W.P.No.4819/2025 disposed on

28.11.2025, wherein it has held as follows:

"18. In the case at hand, the test is conducted at Santosh Hospital. The Additional State Public Prosecutor has not produced any material to demonstrate as to why the urine samples were or are always sent to Santosh Hospital, a private laboratory and not to any Government laboratory. Prior to sending the sample for testing what is necessary is, authorisation of the Magistrate. No material is produced that the Magistrate had authorised the testing at a private laboratory. The State has also failed to produce any Government notification or Circular which recognizes Santosh Hospital as a Government recognized/authorised laboratory for any kind of testing. Therefore, the very report that is provided by the 2^nd respondent is seeped in suspicion, as one urine sample cannot project 5 broad band drugs or 5 psychotropic substances. 5 narcotic drugs in one urine sample cannot emerge, let alone psychotropic substances.

19. It is in public domain that narcotic drugs are derivatives of natural products. Psychotropic substances are chemical derivatives. The indication in the urine sample is 5 chemical substances and if a person would consume all five, his life would be at risk. It is, therefore, necessary after the conduct of test of urine samples, confirmatory tests become mandatory. The confirmatory tests are as afore-quoted. It is not that there is no consideration by any Court with regard to confirmatory tests. The Kerala High Court, in extensor, has considered the tests in the case of SUO MOTU v