Karnataka High Court
Amartiya Rishi vs State Of Karnataka on 21 April, 2020
Author: K.N.Phaneendra
Bench: Krishna S.Dixit, K.N.Phaneendra
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF APRIL, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2044 OF 2020
BETWEEN:
AMARTIYA RISHI,
S/O JYOTHI KUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,
STUDENT OF IIIRD YEAR BMS
JAIN UNIVERSITY,
R/AT NO.406, 4TH FLOOR, C BLOCK,
MBR - SHANGARILA APARTMENT,
HARSHA LAYOUT, VALAGERAHALLI VILLAGE,
MYSORE ROAD, KENGERI,
BANGALORE - 560 059.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. HASMATH PASHA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. NASIR ALI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY: KENGERI POLICE STATION,
BANGALORE CITY,
(REPRESENTED BY LEARNED
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA.
BANGALORE - 560 001.)
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
439 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON
BAIL IN CR.NO.355/2019 OF KENGERI P.S., BENGALURU
CITY FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 8(c), 21(c), 20(a)(b) OF NDPS
ACT AND THE XXXIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS
JUDGE AND SPL. JUDGE (NDPS) BENGALURU HAS
DISMISSED THE BAIL PETITION ON 16.03.2020 IN
CRL.MISC.NO.2288/2020.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
2
ORDER
Petitioner being accused No.1 in Crime NO.355/2019 registered by the Kengeri Police for offences punishable u/ss 8(c), 21(c), 20(a)(b) of the NDPS Act having suffered rejection of his bail petition in Crl. Misc. No.2288/2020 vide order dated 16.03.2020 made by the Spl. Judge (NDPS) Bengaluru has presented this petition under Section439 of Cr.P.C., 1973 seeking his enlargement on bail.
2. After service of notice, the respondent - State having entered appearance through the learned HCGP Shri Mahesh Shetty opposes the petition contending that, the offences are heinous in nature and that if the petitioner is liberated on bail, it would be difficult to secure his presence for the purpose of trial of the case. He also submits that ordinarily, in offences punishable under the provisions of NDPS Act, the Courts do not readily grant bail, regard being had to the social implications.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court is of a considered opinion that petitioner needs to be enlarged on bail because:
3
a) there is force in the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the police papers do not mention specifically about the quantity of the article seized as required in terms of Notification No. SO1055 (E) dated 19.10.2001; at Sl. No.133 of the said Notification, the NDPS article needs to be above 0.1gram and that 22,500 microgram obliviously being less than the minimum commercial quantity, Section 37 of the NDPS Act is not invokable;
b) there is also force in the contention of the petitioner that he having suffered detention of more than 90 days, there being no scientific analysis of the seized NDPS article in terms of quality & quantity, his continued detention is unwarranted and therefore, the non-filing of charge sheet within 60 days as prescribed under Section 167(2) of CR.P.C. would enure to the benefit of the accused;
c) the above apart, the contention of the petitioner that he is a student of Bachelor of Management Studies and that the detention would come in the way of his prosecuting the Course by putting him minimum required attendance and by writing the imminent examinations, cannot be much disputed;
4
d) the contention of the learned Prosecutor that the petitioner if liberated from the confines, his presence cannot be secured for the purpose of further investigation, or for the trial can be taken care off by prescribing stringent conditions; after all, bail is a rule and jail is an exception, of course subject to all just exceptions and that nothing is demonstrated to exclude applicability of this oft quoted norm.
In the above circumstances, this petition having been favoured, petitioner shall be enlarged on bail subject to conditions stipulated hereunder:
i) The petitioner shall execute his personal bond for a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Two Lakh Rupees) only with two sureties for the like-sum each, within four weeks after he is released from the custody to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court.
ii) The petitioner shall mark his attendance once in a fortnight in the jurisdictional Police Station and that shall fully cooperate with the investigation/further investigation; petitioner shall not intimidate or influence any prosecution witness not shall he do any act that would mar the prosecution case.5
iii) The petitioner shall participate in the proceedings of the Court below on every date of hearing and shall not remain absent save with the prior leave of the learned judge of the said Court; petitioner shall not leave the jurisdictional limits of the said Court.
The learned Registrar (Judicial) is requested to transmit this order to the jurisdictional Court/Authority by e-mail or otherwise, as early as possible for information and needful implementation.
Sd/-
JUDGE Bsv