Karnataka High Court
Intelligence Officer vs Ateet Kelvin Gupta on 18 August, 2016
Author: Anand Byrareddy
Bench: Anand Byrareddy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2016
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
CRIMINAL PETITION No.5747 OF 2015
BETWEEN:
Intelligence Officer,
Narcotics Control Bureau,
Bangalore Zonal Unit,
No.7/1-2, Priyank Villas,
Ramanna Garden,
Baglur Main Road,
Kattigenahalli,
Yelahanka,
Bangalore - 560 063.
...PETITIONER
(By Shri Mohan K.N., Advocate)
AND:
Ateet Kelvin Gupta,
Age 22 years,
Son of Manoj Kumar Gupta,
Resident of 11/A,
Sambhu Babu Lane,
Kolkata - 700014.
...RESPONDENT
(By Shri C.G.Sundar, Advocate)
2
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439(2) of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to cancel the
bail granted to respondent/accused No.1 vide order dated
23.2.2015 in NCB.F.No.48/1/6/2014/BZU passed by the court
of the XXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and
Special Judge (NDPS), Bangalore.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders this day, the
court made the following:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. The petitioner which is the prosecuting agency, seeks cancellation of bail granted in respect of Accused No.1. It transpires that the bail was granted to Accused No.1 in the significant circumstance that the substance which was sought to have been recovered from the accused, namely LSD, was not proved to be LSD by producing a report in that regard. Though sufficient time was granted to the prosecution to demonstrate by producing prima facie material that the substance recovered was indeed the said psychotrophic substance and the same not having been done, the court below had thought it fit to grant bail.
3
3. It is now the case of the petitioner that belatedly, a report has been received and notwithstanding that the court below has granted bail insofar as the other accused are concerned, the present respondent was the main accused and he was found to be in possession of a substance which is now established prima facie as being 'LSD', by the report furnished by the Forensic Science Laboratory and therefore, the learned counsel seeks cancellation of the bail.
4. If the accused has gained an advantage by the belated progress of the prosecution, the grant of bail by the court below was a grim remainder to the prosecution of want of diligence, which is this which has conferred on the accused a benefit which cannot be taken away merely because the prosecution has now been able to gain speed in gathering any material in support of its case. It can only be used at the trial which the accused shall stand, in due course. Therefore, there is no 4 warrant to cancel the bail at this point of time. The petition is rejected.
The further circumstance that the court below was persuaded to grant bail on the footing that the other accused, namely Accused Nos.2 and 3 had been granted bail, is only an added circumstance and it would make no difference to reconsider the grant of bail.
Sd/-
JUDGE KS