Karnataka High Court
Sri Shabrinath Patil vs The State Of Karnataka on 2 February, 2023
-1-
CRL.P No. 568 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 568 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
SRI. SHABRINATH PATIL
S/O. ARVINDA ERANNAGOWDA PATIL
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
R/AT #28/B, 1ST CROSS, 'K' BLOCK
A.C. GIRI ROAD, KUVEMPUNAGARA
MYSURU - 570 001.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI: S.J. CHOUTA, SR ADVOCATE, FOR
SRI: SRIKANTH PATIL .K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ASHOKAPURAM POLICE STATION
MYSURU
NOW REPRESENTED BY STATE PP
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BUILDING
BENGALURU - 560 001.
Digitally signed by
NANDINI B G ...RESPONDENT
Location: High
Court Of (BY SRI: K. RAHUL RAI, HCGP)
Karnataka
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 CRPC
PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.86/2022
OF ASHOKPURAM P.S., MYSURU CITY FOR THE OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 22(B) OF NDPS ACT ON THE FILE OF
THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSURU.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
CRL.P No. 568 of 2023
ORDER
The petitioner-accused No.1 is before this Court seeking grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in Crime No.86 of 2022 of Ashokpuram Police Station, pending on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru, registered for the offence punishable under Section 22(b) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (for short 'NDPS Act'), on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant A Mallesh.
2. Heard Sri S J Chouta, learned senior advocate for Sri K Srikanth Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K Rahul Rai, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent -State. Perused the materials on record.
3. Learned senior advocate for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is arrayed as accused No.1. He is innocent and has not committed any offences as alleged. He has been falsely implicated in the matter without any basis. He was apprehended on 23.12.2022 and since then he is in judicial custody. It is alleged that the petitioner was in possession of 31 grams of Amphetamine, which is of intermediary quantity. Major portion of the investigation is already completed. Since -3- CRL.P No. 568 of 2023 the seizure is already completed, the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail. He is not having any criminal antecedents. He is not required to be detained in custody for any purpose except to ensure his presence before the Trial Court. Accused No.2 against whom similar allegation is made, is already enlarged on bail. Hence, this petitioner is also entitled to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity. Detention of the petitioner in custody would amount to pre-trial punishment. The petitioner is the permanent resident of the address mentioned in the cause title to the petition and is ready and willing to abide by any of the conditions that would be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays to allow the petition.
4. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader opposing the petition submitted that serious allegations are made against the petitioner and other co-accused, for having committed the offences. Accused Nos.1 and 2 are found together and accused No.1 was in possession of 31 grams of Amphetamine and accused No.2 was in possession of 3.17 grams of Heroine Morphine and 0.50 grams of LSD strips. The investigation is still in progress. Looking to the facts and -4- CRL.P No. 568 of 2023 circumstances of the case, the petitioner is not entitled for grant of bail. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the petition.
5. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:
"Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.?"
My answer to the above point is in 'Affirmative' for the following:
REASONS
6. The allegations made against the petitioner is of serious nature. On receiving credible information that two persons are in possession of the contraband, for the purpose of selling. Accused Nos.1 and 2 were intercepted and their personal search was conducted. Accused No.1 was found to be in possession of 31 grams of Amphetamine and accused No.2 was in possession of 3.17 grams of Heroine Morphine and 0.50 grams of LSD strips. The seizure mahazar was drawn and the investigation was undertaken. The contraband that was seized -5- CRL.P No. 568 of 2023 on personal search of the petitioner and accused No.2 are of intermediary quantity. Only Section 22(b) of NDPS Act is invoked by the Investigating Officer. Therefore, the rigor of Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of NDPS Act is not attracted. Even though the investigation is not yet completed, it is not the contention of the prosecution that the petitioner is required for custodial interrogation. Moreover, accused No.2 against whom similar allegation is made is already enlarged on bail. Therefore, the petitioner is also entitled to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity. Detention of the petitioner in custody would amount to infringement to his right to life and liberty. Hence, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail subject to conditions, which will take care of the apprehension expressed by the learned High Court Government Pleader that the petitioner may abscond or may tamper or threaten the prosecution witnesses.
7. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the affirmative and proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The petition is allowed.-6-
CRL.P No. 568 of 2023 The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.86 of 2022 of Ashokpuram Police Station, pending on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru, on obtaining the bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court, subject to the following conditions:
a). The petitioner shall not commit similar offences.
b). The petitioner shall not threaten or tamper with the prosecution witnesses.
c). The petitioner shall appear before the Court as and when required.
If in case, the petitioner violates any of the conditions as stated above, the prosecution will be at liberty to move the Trial Court seeking cancellation of bail.
On furnishing the sureties by the petitioner, the Trial Court is at liberty to direct the Investigating Officer to verify the correctness of the address and authenticity of the documents furnished by the petitioner and the sureties and a report may be called for in that regard, which is to be submitted by the Investigating Officer within 5 days. The Trial -7- CRL.P No. 568 of 2023 Court on satisfaction, may proceed to accept the sureties for the purpose of releasing the petitioner on bail.
Sd/-
JUDGE *bgn/-