Karnataka High Court
Balgish Mohamed Jifri vs State Of Karnataka on 13 January, 2022
Author: H.P. Sandesh
Bench: H.P. Sandesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
CRIMINAL PETITION No.7771 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
BALGISH MOHAMED JIFRI,
D/O MOHAMED JIFRI,
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
ADDRESS: NO.418, 8TH MAIN,
AECS LAYOUT BLOCK, SINGASANDRA,
BENGALURU - 560 068.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SHAKEER ABBAS M., ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH BEGURU POLICE STATION,
BENGALURU CITY.
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. VINAYAKA V.S., HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439
OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN
CR.NO.165/2021 OF BEGURU P.S., BENGALURU CITY FOR THE
OFFENCE P/U/S.8(c), 21(c), 22(c), 27(a) OF NDPS ACT.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS
THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE
THE FOLLOWING:
2
ORDER
This petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail of the petitioner in Crime No.165/2021 of Beguru Police Station, Bengaluru City for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 21(c), 22(c), 27(a) of NDPS Act.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
3. The factual matrix of the case is that on credible information when the raid was conducted, this petitioner along with other five accused persons were apprehended on 12.08.2021 and seized 100 grams of MDMA and 0.031 grams of LSD Strips. Hence, the case has been registered and the matter is under investigation.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is in custody for the last 153 days and the 3 provisions of Sections 42 and 50 of NDPS Act is not complied. Hence, the petitioner is entitled for bail.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader would submit that the MDMA, if it is more than 10 grams, it is a commercial quantity and the investigation is not yet completed. Apart from 100 grams of MDMA, LSD strips were also seized. The petitioner is from Tamilnadu and from her possession, 25 grams of MDMA has been recovered. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled for bail.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned High Court Government Pleader and looking into the material on record, on credible information, the house was searched wherein, this petitioner along with other accused persons was found and 100 grams of MDMA was seized, which is a commercial quantity apart from LSD strips. It is the specific case of the prosecution that 25 grams of MDMA has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner. When the investigation is under progress and a commercial quantity of MDMA is seized, the very 4 contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is in custody for 153 days is not a ground for granting bail that too when a heinous offence under Section 27 of NDPS Act is invoked. For the investigation 180 days is required and apart from that, the public prosecutor can seek extension of time for filing the charge sheet. When such being the case and taking note of the fact that 100 grams of MDMA and LSD strips were seized, it is not a fit case to exercise the discretion under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. Hence, I do not find any merit in the petition.
7. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:
ORDER The Criminal Petition is rejected. However, liberty is reserved for the petitioner after filing of the charge sheet.
Sd/-
JUDGE mv