Karnataka High Court
Allavuddin @ Dally S/O Ramjansab Nadaf vs The State Of Karnataka on 5 December, 2018
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.SUDHINDRARAO
Crl.P.No.102231 of 2018
Between:
Allavuddin @ Dally S/o.Ramajansab Nadaf,
Age 32 years, Occ: Tejaswinagar,
Dahrwad.
... Petitioner
(By Shri T.R.Patil, Advocate)
And:
The State of Karnataka,
Dharwad Town P.S.,
Rep. by State Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench.
... Respondent
(By Shri Praveen K.Uppar, HCGP)
This criminal petition is filed under Section 439 of
Cr.P.C. seeking to release of the petitioner on bail in
Spl.NDPS C.C.No.04 of 2018 (arising out crime No.50 of
2018, Dharwad Town P.S.) registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(c) of NDPS Act, 1985
and Section 25 of Arms Act, 1959, against him, pending
on the file of the Prl. District and Sessions Judge,
Dharwad.
:2:
This petition coming on for orders, this day, the
Court made the following:
ORDER
This petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. by the petitioner-accused seeking bail in Crime No.50 of 2018 of Dharwad Town Police Station relating to Spl.NDPS C.C.No.04 of 2018 pending on the file of Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad. The offences alleged against the petitioner is punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(c) of NDPS Act, 1985 and Section 25 of Arms Act, 1959.
2. Heard, the learned counsel for the petitioner- accused and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.
3. The substance of the complaint are that on surveying the movements of the accused, on 18.06.2018 at about 9:30 a.m. the complainant being the PSI along with his staff conducted raid on the house of the accused situated near Kamanakatti, Dharwad. The accused is a :3: known criminal and a rowdy sheeter in Dharwad Vidyagiri Police Station. He is involved in in a number of cases like murder, attempting murder and etc., and the Police are watching all this activities regularly and seized 1700 gms of ganja from a plastic bag kept in the corner of the house. On enquiry, the accused admitted that he had kept Ganja in his house for the purpose of sale. Apart from this the place have also seized two hockey sticks, one steel punch and three mobile phones and in front of the house of the accused there was a motorcycle bearing Registration No.KA-25/EG-9413 and from the dickey, the Police seized on dagger and one airgun. On the basis of the complaint filed by the complainant, a case came to be registered for the aforesaid offences.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and he is falsely implicated in this case. During the course of investigation the petitioner came to be arrested and has been remanded to the judicial custody. He further submits that the :4: investigation is completed and the charge sheet is filed, his detention in judicial custody is no more required. Hence, prays for allowing the bail petition filed by the petitioners.
5. The learned HCGP opposes the bail petition and submits that on suspicion raid was conducted and the accused was caught red-handed with contraband substance. He further submits that the accused is a habitual offender and a rowdy sheeter of Dharwad Vidyagiri Police Station and as many as 13 criminal cases of different nature have been registered against him. Hence, prays for dismissal of the bail petition.
6. In the context and circumstances of the case, it is necessary to consider the nature of offence, the contraband substance and its impact on the society and the background of the accused, being rowdy sheeter, who involved in several other cases. It is neither just nor appropriate to exercise discretion in his favour to release him on bail. Investigation is completed, charge sheet is :5: filed. However, the custody of the petitioner in judicial custody and completion of investigation cannot be a deciding factor to grant relief of bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, the petition filed by the petitioners under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. is hereby rejected.
SD JUDGE Vnp*