Karnataka High Court
Elvis Kayine vs State Of Karnataka on 1 August, 2022
Author: K.Natarajan
Bench: K.Natarajan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6151 OF 2022
BETWEEN
ELVIS KAYINE
S/O OCHACHOSIM
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
R/AT OJIJA NGA NIGERIAN
PRESENTLY R/AT NO.3, 1ST FLOOR
OMBR LAYOUT
CHIKKABANASWADI
BENGALURU -560 043 ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI J. PRAKASH, ADVOCATE)
AND
STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR
SIDDAPURA POLICE STATION
BENGALURU - 560 011
REPRESENTED BY
THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU - 560 001 ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI R.D. RENUKARADHYA, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439
OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO
ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.132/2022 DATED
21.05.2022 OF SIDDAPURA P.S., BENGALURU CITY FOR THE
OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 8(c),22(c) AND 27(A)
OF N.D.P.S ACT, SECTION 14 OF FOREIGNERS ACT AND UNDER
SECTIONS 506,149,332,353 OF IPC AND SECTION 27(A) OF
2
NDPS ACT ON THE FILE OF THE XXXIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AND SPL.JUDGE (NDPS) AT
BENGALURU.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS,
THIS DAY THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.1 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for granting bail in Crime No.132/2022 registered by Siddapura Police Station, Bengaluru for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 22(c) and 27A of NDPS Act, Section 14 of Foreigners Act and Sections 506, 149, 332, 353 of IPC.
2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.
3. The case of the prosecution is that the complainant-Mohana Muruli, PSI of Siddapura Police Station filed a complaint to the SHO of Siddapura Police Station on 22.05.2022 alleging that he received a credible information on 21.05.2022 at 8.00 p.m. that an African person in his African Café is supplying and distributing the 3 drugs, therefore, he along with his staffs and panchas visited the spot after intimating the same to the concerned jurisdictional Police. At 9.30 p.m., when he raided the Café, the African customers who were said to be present in the Café were said to be obstructed and the accused- petitioner also obstructed the complainant from raiding the Café. Subsequently, the complainant said to be seized 12 grams of MDMA pills under the panchanama, arrested the petitioner and bought to the Police Station and in turn, he has been produced and remanded to judicial custody. His bail petition is rejected by the Special Judge. Hence, he is before this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that he is innocent of the alleged offences and he has been falsely implicated in the case. He is running the business from last ten years. There is no criminal records. He is ready to abide by the conditions that may be imposed by this Court. He is having family members at Bengaluru. Hence, prayed for granting bail. 4
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader seriously objected the bail petition and contended that this petitioner is already involved in the similar case in the year 2011 and in the name of the Café, he was also selling the MDMA pills and other drugs. Therefore, matter is seriously investigated by the Police. If the petitioner is released on bail, chances of fleeing away from the justice is not ruled out. Hence, prayed for dismissing the petition.
6. Having heard the arguments and on perusal of the records, which reveals that as on the date of the raid, the Police seized 12 grams of MDMA sheets which is more than the commercial quantity. That apart, when the complainant-Police was raiding the premises of the petitioner, they said to be assaulted and prevented the Police from discharging their official duty. Therefore, the Police also registered an FIR against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 332 and 353 of IPC and the Police also invoked Section 14 of the Foreigners Act. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the matter is still 5 under investigation, therefore, at this stage, if the petitioner is granted bail, there is every possibility of tampering the witnesses, abscond from the case and even flee away from the justice is not ruled out. Therefore, I am of the view, the petitioner is not entitled for bail.
7. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE GBB