Karnataka High Court
Munees Kavil Paramabath @ Munees K P vs State By Intelligence Officer on 16 January, 2020
Author: John Michael Cunha
Bench: John Michael Cunha
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7861 OF 2019
BETWEEN:
Munees Kavil Paramabath @ Munees K.P.
S/o Mohammad Ali Tholan
Aged about 28 years
R/o Soudabi Manzil
PO Mattul North
Kannur-670325.
...Petitioner
(By Sri. Vishwajith Shetty.S., Advocate)
AND:
State by Intelligence Officer,
Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB)
Bangalore Zonal Unit,
Ramanna garden, Kattigenahalli
Bagalur Main Road, Yelhanka Post,
Bangalore-560001.
...Respondent
(By Sri. Madhukar.M.Deshpande, Advocate)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of
Cr.P.C., praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in
Spl.C.C.No.1106/2019 (NCB F.No.48/1/3/2019/BZU)
registered by Intelligent Officer, NCB, Bangalore Zonal
-2-
Unit, Bengaluru for the offence p/u/ss. 8(c) r/w Sections
20(b), (ii), (C), 21(b), 22(C), 27A, 27B, 28 and 29 of
N.D.P.S.Act.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders this
day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
The petitioner before this Court is shown as accused No.8 in the charge sheet laid by the Narcotics Control Bureau.
2. The charges alleged against the petitioners are punishable under Sections 8(c) and 8A(a), (b), (c) r/w 27A and 27B, 28 and 29 of NDPS Act.
3. The substance of accusation against the petitioner is as under:
That on 22.03.2019, on the basis of credible information, the respondent-NCB team arrested accused Nos.1 and 2, who were about to travel Doha by Oman Airways and seized 965 gms. of amphetamine, 30 gms. of cocaine and 4.525 kgs. of hashish from the possession of accused Nos.1 and 2. Petitioner -3- Nos.1 and 2 are arraigned as accused Nos.3 and 4 in NCBF No.48/1/3/2019/BZU (CIS No.288/2019) for the offence punishable under Sections 8(c) read with 20(b), 21, 22, 28 and 29 of NDPS Act. It appears, on the basis of voluntary statement of accused No.1, petitioner was arrested on the allegation that he indulged in financing.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that accused No.5 who is facing identical allegations of financing the other accused for carrying on the drug business has been enlarged on bail by the orders of this Court in Crl.P.No.7624/2019 c/w Crl.P.No.6609/2019 dated 19.12.2019 and hence, pleads for release of the petitioner on parity and also on the ground that the material evidence in proof of the accusations leveled against the petitioner is already collected by the investigating agency and therefore his custody is not required to be extended solely by way of punishment.
5. The application is seriously opposed by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent -4- who has filed detailed statement of objections wherein it is contended that apart from the instant case, the petitioner is also involved in two other cases and therefore, he is not entitled for grant of bail. Further with regard to the plea urged by the petitioner based on parity, the learned Standing Counsel has referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satpal Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in (2008) 13 SCC 813 and would submit that since the petitioner is facing accusations under Section 27A of the NDPS Act and allied offences, he is not entitled to parity with the co-accused.
6. I have bestowed my careful thought to the submissions made at the Bar and considered the material on record.
7. Insofar as the merits are concerned, the material allegations leveled against the petitioner is that he was found financing the other accused persons for procuring drugs and was actively assisting his brother -5- Mohsin K P in running the drug business. The said allegations appears to have been made mainly on the basis of the voluntary statement of accused No.5 and the bank statement of the petitioner. Both these pieces of evidence are required to be established in the course of trial. Moreover, the co-accused particularly, accused No.5 who is facing identical charges having been enlarged on bail, in my view, the petitioner is entitled to be released on the ground of parity.
8. In the decision relied on by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent, the accused therein had approached the Hon'ble High Court for grant of anticipatory bail and the same was pending consideration before the High Court. Suppressing this fact, the accused obtained a regular bail after issuance of the summons by the trial Court. In that context, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the Sessions Court ought to have taken note of the final order passed by the High Court and also should have considered the -6- case of the petitioner in the light of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. In the said case, the quantity of the contraband alleged against the accused was reportedly of commercial quantity. Since the learned Magistrate failed to take into consideration the limitations prescribed under Section 37 of the Act, such an observation was made.
9. In the instant case, no doubt, charge sheet is laid against the petitioners under Section 27A of the NDPS Act and other allied offences and Section 37 of the NDPS Act requires the Court to afford an opportunity to the Public Prosecutor to oppose the application for release of the petitioner who is accused of the offences under Sections 19, 24 or 27A of the NDPS Act. Such an opportunity has been given to the petitioner. The said section does bar this Court in extending the benefit of an order passed against the co-accused on the ground of parity. As such, the reliance placed by the learned Standing Counsel on Section 37 of the NDPS Act and the -7- decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in my view, do not disentitle the petitioner to maintain the application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.
10. Having considered the nature of allegations made against the petitioner and moreover, the incriminating evidence in support of these accusations having already been collected, in my view, it is not proper to extend the custody of the petitioner, lest it would turn out to be punishment without trial. The pendency of other cases against the petitioner would be relevant for the purpose of quantum of sentence and not for grant of bail. In that view of the matter, petition deserves to be allowed.
Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed.
i) Petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail on furnishing a bond in a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court.
ii) Petitioner shall appear before the court as and when required.-8-
iii) Petitioner shall not threaten or allure the prosecution witnesses in whatsoever manner.
vi) Petitioners shall not get himself involved in similar offences. In the event petitioner is found involved in any other offences, liberty is reserved to the prosecution to seek for cancellation of bail.
v) Petitioners shall not leave the territorial limits of the Trial Court without prior permission of the Trial Court.
Sd/-
JUDGE bkp