Karnataka High Court
Juju Pradhan vs Union Of India on 27 February, 2024
Author: Rajendra Badamikar
Bench: Rajendra Badamikar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:8129
CRL.P No. 13265 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 13265 OF 2023 (439)
BETWEEN:
1. JUJU PRADHAN,
S/O PIT PRADHAN,
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS,
R/AT KRANDIBALLI VILLAGE,
KAMTANA POST,
PIRINGYA TASIL,
KANDHAMAL DISTRICT,
ODISHA STATE,
PIN - 762 002.
2. JANARDHANA KANHAR,
S/O BISASWAR KANHAR,
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS,
R/AT JIDINGI PADA VILLAGE,
PAKARI POST, PIRINGYA TASIL,
KANDHAMAL DISTRICT,
Digitally ODISHA STATE - 762 002.
signed by
SOWMYA D 3. UTAM KANHAR,
Location: High S/O LABUDUKANHAR,
Court of AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS,
Karnataka R/AT KRANDIBALLI VILLAGE,
KAMTANA POST, PIRINGYA TASIL,
KANDHAMAL DISTRICT,
ODISHA STATE, PIN - 762 002.
(PETITIONER NO 1 TO 3
ARE IN JUDICIAL CUSTODY)
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. A V RAMAKRISHNA.,ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:8129
CRL.P No. 13265 of 2023
AND:
UNION OF INDIA,
NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU,
BENGALURU ZONAL UNIT,
BENGALURU - 560 063,
THROUGH INTELLIGENCE OFFICER,
REPT BY
SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
OFFICE OF ADDL.SOLICITOR GENERAL
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU - 560 001.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. UMESH P B.,CGC / NCB)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.439 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE
THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN NCB.F.NO.48/1/14/2023/BZU BY NCB,
BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE P/U /S 8(c) R/W 20(b)(ii)(c), 27(A),
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), BENGALURU IN SPL.C.C.NO.2180/2023.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDER, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioners filed this petition under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking for enlarging them on bail in NCB F.No.48/1/14/2023/BZU, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 8(c) read with Section 20 (B)(ii), (b), 27(A), 28 and 29 of NDPS Act, 1985, pending on the file of the XXXIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for NDPS Act, Bengaluru, in Spl.C.C.No.2180/2023.
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:8129 CRL.P No. 13265 of 2023
2. The brief factual matrix leading to the case are that on 07.04.2023, the complainant has received a credible information that three persons i.e., petitioners traveling from Brahmapur, Odisha in train along with contraband and will be reaching Bengaluru on 07.04.2023 by Prashanthi Express Train No.18463. On the basis of information on 07.04.2023 the complainant along with raiding staff and Pancha went to SBC railway station at 11.00 a.m. and were awaiting for train Prashanthi Express to arrive. It is further alleged that at 12.15 p.m. the Prashanthi Express arrived in Platform No.4 and immediately NCB, team went to S5 bogie and apprehended the petitioners who were carrying three bags. On verification of these bags, it is found to be containing 21.880 Kg of Ganja. Then the petitioners were arrested and produced before the Special Court and were remanded to custody. After completing the investigation, the investigating officer has submitted a final report in the form of the complaint. On the basis of the complaint since it was lodged in the official capacity by public servant, the Special judge has taken cognizance. The petitioners approached learned XXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for NDPS Act, Bengaluru, for -4- NC: 2024:KHC:8129 CRL.P No. 13265 of 2023 admitting them on bail and the learned Special Judge by order dated 21.11.2023 rejected the bail petition. Hence, the petitioners are before this Court.
3. Heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for petitioners and learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for Union of India. Perused the records.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the entire 20kg of Ganja was not seized from individual accused but as per the case of the prosecution it was spread over in three bags and hence, at the most each accused/petitioner is said to have been carrying intermediate quantity of the Ganja. It is further asserted that the mandatory provisions of Section 50 were not followed and though apprehension was on 07.04.2023, the petitioners were produced before the jurisdictional Special Judge on 10.04.2023 by showing arrest on 09.04.2023. Hence, he would contend that petitioners have been falsely fixed in this case by NCB and sought for admitting on bail. He would also under take to abide by the terms and conditions to be imposed by this Court. -5-
NC: 2024:KHC:8129 CRL.P No. 13265 of 2023
5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for Union of India would seriously oppose the bail petition contending that the petitioners together were traveling from Odisha to Bengaluru and were carrying more than 20kg of Ganja and it is a commercial quantity. It is further asserted that they are not prepared to explain the source of securing this Ganja which is a contraband article and provisions of Section 50 does not apply since there is no personal search and search was from the bag carried by the petitioners. He would also assert that the arguments regarding production of the petitioners before the Court after belated stage etc., have no relevance in view of Section 67 of the NDPS Act. Hence, he would contend that the large quantity of contraband was seized which is detrimental to the society and as such, he would seek for rejection of the bail petition.
6. Having heard the arguments and perusing the records, the allegations disclose that on 06.04.2023, the complainant has received a credible information regarding the petitioners transporting Ganja from Odisha to Bengaluru in Prashanthi Express Train No.18463 and were arriving Bengaluru on 07.04.2023. The allegations of the prosecution -6- NC: 2024:KHC:8129 CRL.P No. 13265 of 2023 further disclose that the complainant has formed a raiding party and also secured two independent witnesses and 12.15 hours on 07.04.2023 in Platform No.4 when Prashanthi express arrived they conducted raid in S5 Bogie wherein petitioners were found carrying three bags containing 20.640 kg of Ganja. The same was seized and in this regard a detailed Mahazar was also drawn. The records also disclose that the petitioners traveled in the train without ticket but paid penalty of Rs.1,800/- and were traveling from Odisha to Bengaluru.
7. Prima facie there is material evidence to show that more than 20kg of Ganja was recovered from the custody of the petitioners. It is for the petitioners to explain as to under what circumstances they were transporting this huge quantity of Ganja and under Section 35 of the NDPS Act, there is presumption of mental state of mind.
8. Much arguments have been advanced regarding non compliance of provisions of Section 50. But admittedly provisions of Section 50 would only apply to personal search but not to search of a bag. In this context, the learned counsel for respondent has placed reliance on a decision reported in -7- NC: 2024:KHC:8129 CRL.P No. 13265 of 2023 AIR (SC)-2023-0-5164 (Ranjan Kumar Chadha Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh). In the said decision, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that Section 50 would be applicable only to the personal searches and not the searches of the vehicles or bag. The similar proposition of law is also laid down by the Apex Court in decision reported in 2014 (1) Crimes 324 (SC), (State of Rajasthan Vs. Parmanand & Another). Admittedly in the instant case, there is no personal search. While the bags were seized, and they were searched and admittedly the contraband Ganja was carried in the three bags by petitioners. The records further disclose that personal search was held on 09.04.2023 and not on the same day. Under such circumstances had there been personal search as well as search in a bag simultaneously the provisions of Section 50 would have been made applicable. But since at the time of seizure and search of bag no personal search was held, question of applying provisions of Section 50 does not arise at all.
9. The records further disclose that the complainant has secured two independent witnesses from the railway station itself and hence, he had complied with the other mandatory requirements of the law.
-8-
NC: 2024:KHC:8129 CRL.P No. 13265 of 2023
10. The other contention is that though the apprehension was on 07.04.2023, the arrest was shown to be on 09.04.2023 and production before the Special Judge was on 10.04.2023. No doubt, it is evident from the records and it is for the prosecution to explain as for what purpose they have retained the custody of the petitioners for two days without producing them before the concerned Special Judge. The arguments advance regarding Section 67 of NDPS Act, regarding the course of action but that has nothing to do with mandatory requirement of production of the accused within 24 hours before the Court. However, that would not help the petitioners to seek the bail in this case. However, they can seek appropriate remedy by way of any other relief for illegal detention in a competent Court of law. However at this stage there is a prima facie material evidence regarding seizure of commercial quantity of contraband and petitioners are not able to explain though the burden is on them in view of presumption in favour of prosecution under Section 35 of NDPS Act. Under such circumstances, question of granting bail to the petitioners does not arise at all, as the targeted group is the younger generation especially school and college students as well as it is -9- NC: 2024:KHC:8129 CRL.P No. 13265 of 2023 against the economy of the State. Such offences cannot be taken in a light way. As such, petition being devoid of any merits does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the followings:
ORDER i. The petition stands dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE AMA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34