Karnataka High Court
Anjoom Rahman K vs Union Of India on 18 August, 2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G. UMA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.3952 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
ANJOOM RAHMAN K
S/O MUSTAFA K
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
R/O # 28/B, 3RD MAIN, 18TH CROSS
BTM 2ND STAGE, NS PALYA
BENGALURU-560 076.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI: K.S.VISHWANATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
UNION OF INDIA
NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU
BENGALURU
(REPRESENTED BY LEARNED
SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR)
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI: MADHUKAR DESHPANDE, CGSC)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439
OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN
NCB.F.NO.48/1/13/2020/BZU OF NDPS ACT FOR THE OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 8(C) READ WITH SECTIONS 22C
AND 23C OF NDPS ACT WHICH IS PENDING IN
SPL.C.C.NO.165/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE XXXIII ADDL CITY
CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPL JUDGE AND NDPS
BENGALURU.
2
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT
OF ORDERS TODAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner-accused is before this Court seeking grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in NCB.F.No.48/1/13/2020/BZU of Narcotics Control Bureau, Bengaluru Zonal Unit, Kattigenahalli (for short 'NCB'), pending in Spl.C.C.No.165 of 2021 on the file of the XXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for NDPS, Bengaluru, registered for the offences punishable under Section 8(c) read with Sections 22(c) and 23(c) of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (for short 'NDPS Act'), on the basis of the secret information.
2. Heard Sri.K S Vishwanath, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Madhukar Deshpande, learned Central Government Standing Counsel for the respondent - State. Perused the materials placed on record. 3
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the sole accused. He has not committed any offences as alleged. He has been falsely implicated in the matter without any basis. He was apprehended on 20.08.2020 and since then he is in judicial custody.
4. Learned counsel submits that, it is the contention of the prosecution that NCB received credible information regarding a parcel lying in the foreign post office, at Chamrajpet, Bengaluru, suspected to have containing MDMA. Accordingly, the NCB police visited the post office and in the presence of two panchas, inspected the parcel lying there, unclaimed. The parcel was found to be booked from Deutsche post addressed to one Amitha Radhakrishnan, 28/B, (F-3), 5th Main, 8th Cross, BTM 2nd stage, NS playa, Karnataka, Bengaluru - 560076, India. On enquiry about the details of the sender, it was revealed by the post master that the same was booked from Frankfurt, Germany. When the parcel was opened, 4 polythene covers were found. There were several layers of polythene covers, wherein, grey colour rectangular tablets weighing 69 grams in one pouch and light brown colour oval shaped tablets weighing 90 grams in another pouch were found. The appearance and texture of the substance was that of MDMA. The gross weight of the entire contraband was 159 grams. The samples were drawn and the contraband was seized under the seizure mahazar.
5. Learned counsel submitted that the name of the petitioner is nowhere mentioned in the parcel, nor he gone to the post office to collect the same, nor the parcel was addressed to the petitioner. It is the specific contention of the prosecution that the parcel was addressed to one Amitha Radhakrishnan. But she is not arrayed as accused in the present case. On the basis of the address found on the parcel, the Investigating Officer visited the flat, searched the same, wherein, the petitioner was residing. But no contraband was found in the said flat. The petitioner was subjected to interrogation. His 5 bank details were collected. Similarly, the statement of Amitha Radhakrishnan was also recorded. After completing the investigation, the charge sheet is filed against the present petitioner alone for the above said offences.
6. Learned counsel submitted that the parcel in question was not in the name of the petitioner. No incriminating materials were recovered either from the person or from the house, where the petitioner was residing. There is absolutely no connecting link between the petitioner and the offence in question. It is the contention of the prosecution that the petitioner had purchased the contraband by paying the consideration in BIT coin through VICKR app. But nothing has been placed before the Court to substantiate any of these contentions.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner and Amitha Radhakrishnan, who is the addressee in the so-called parcel were residing 6 together for sometime. The prosecution produced the bank account statements of both petitioner and Amitha Radhakrishnan. But there is not even a single transaction which can be suspected to be connected to deal with the contraband. There is no abnormal financial transaction to contend that the petitioner was dealing with contraband by purchasing the same from foreign country and distributing it in India. Except the so-called voluntary statement of the petitioner said to have been recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, there are no incriminating materials to suspect the role of the present petitioner in commission of the offences. Under such circumstances, his detention in custody would amount to pre-trial punishment. The prosecution failed to place even prima facie materials against the petitioner. The petitioner is a student aged 23 years, who is having permanent place of residence in the address mentioned in the petition. He is not having any criminal antecedents 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.
7
8. Per contra, learned Central Government Standing Counsel opposing the petition submitted that a credible information was received regarding the unclaimed parcel in the foreign post office and therefore, NCB had mounted surveillance about the identity of the person who may come to collect the parcel. The petitioner after suspecting about the surveillance had not gone to the post office to collect the parcel, even though, it was he who booked the parcel in the name of Amitha Radhakrishnan. Admittedly, the petitioner and Amitha Radhakrishnan were residing together in live-in relationship. Taking advantage of the situation, the petitioner used to book the parcels in her name. When the parcel was lying unclaimed, the same was seized under the seizure mahazar, after following the procedures as contemplated under the Act. When the house mentioned in the address was searched, the petitioner was found in occupation of the same. Therefore, his statements were recorded. Only after finding the link 8 between the contraband and the petitioner, he was taken to custody.
9. During investigation, it was found that the petitioner was using VICKR app for placing orders and getting the consignment. This app is specially designed to carry on the dealings in contraband and such other substance as it will provide anonymity of both consigner and the consignee and the details of the transactions. The app is so designed that the messages will get deleted once the message is read. The petitioner revealed the information that he used to consign the contraband for the purpose of distributing the same to the students in Jain, CMS and other colleges. The money that were collected from sale of contraband is credited to his account and also to the account of his girlfriend i.e., Amitha Radhakrishnan. Small doses of contraband were being sold to the students for their consumption or for further distribution and the petitioner used to get commission for the same. The statement of the petitioner and that of Amitha 9 Radhakrishnan would substantiate this fact. It is also found that similar parcel was intercepted on earlier occasion which was also addressed to Amitha Radhakrishnan in the same address and it was containing ganja weighing 25 grams, as the same is evident from the letter dated 09.11.2020 addressed by the Deputy Commissioner of City Customs, PAD, Bengaluru to the Investigating Officer.
10. Learned CGSC further submitted that the account statements relating to the bank accounts of the petitioner and Amitha Radhakrishnan in Kotak Mahindra Bank, Karur Vyasa Bank and Kerala Grameena Bank, disclose that they were dealing in lakhs of rupees which is the proceeds of the secret transaction. The petitioner was in conscious possession of the contraband which he booked in the name of Amitha Radhakrishnan. All these facts and circumstances disclose that the petitioner is in the habit of consigning the contraband through VICKR app and getting the parcel in the name of Amitha Radhakrishnan with whom he was residing, by paying the consideration 10 through crypto currency. During investigation, it was also found that the petitioner had thrown his mobile in the sewage and purchased a new phone to conceal his bad deals. The International Mobile Equipment Identity (IMEI) details collected by the Investigating Officer discloses that since 18.08.2020, the petitioner has changed his mobile and therefore, IMEI number also changed. This shows the guilty mind of the petitioner and prima facie shows his intention to cause disappearance of the evidence. At this stage, prima facie materials are placed before the Court which are sufficient to deny bail to the petitioner.
11. The learned CGSC further submitted that unless, the twin conditions specified under Section 37 of the NDPS Act are satisfied, the petitioner is not entitled for bail. He relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India Vs Ram Samujh and another1, State of Kerala and Others Vs Rajesh and Others2 and the 1 (1999) 9 SCC 429 2 (2020) 12 SCC 122 11 judgment of High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Lakhwinder Singh Vs Union of India and Others3 and contended that the twin requirements provided under Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act is required to be complied with, if the accused is to be enlarged on bail. The statement of objects and reasons for introducing the bill for amendment of NDPS Act and the subsequent amendment, is to be borne in mind, while considering the bail applications filed by the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 19, 24, 27-A and for the offences involving commercial quantity of the contraband. Learned counsel submits that since commercial quantity of MDMA was recovered in the present case and strong prima facie materials are placed before the Court to prove the involvement of the petitioner, he is not entitled for grant of bail. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the petition.
12. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no materials are placed before the Court to 3 2011 SCC Online P & H 6671 12 show that the petitioner had discarded his old phone and purchased the new one. Even though the bank statements were produced, there is nothing abnormal in the transactions and there is nothing to suggest that the petitioner was dealing with BIT coin. If at all the petitioner was transacting with VICKR app, the same could have been retrieved by the Investigating Officer. Not even a single student either from Jain or CMS or any other college is enquired by the Investigating Officer. Procuring the contraband and selling the same is not even probablised. Even at the time of seizure of the contraband, Amitha Radhakrishnan was staying in the house where the petitioner was staying. She has not left to Kerala, as contended by the prosecution. Even though it is alleged that financial investigation was undertaken, no suspected transactions could be highlighted.
13. Learned counsel placed his reliance in the decision of High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Ankush 13 Kumar @ sonu Vs State of Punjab4, the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Sujit Tiwari Vs State of Gujarat and another5 and the judgment of co-ordinate Bench of this Court in J Kannan Vs The Union of India6, to contend that granting of bail is to be considered in light of the precious fundamental right of the accused protected under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is not the stage to determine the materials on record to convict the petitioner-accused. When the presence of the petitioner in custody is not required for any purpose, denial of his right to be enlarged on bail would amount to infringement of his right to life and liberty. He further submitted that the facts and circumstances highlighted above would indicate that there is nothing on record even to probabalise the involvement of the present petitioner in commission of the offences. Under such circumstances, even if the twin conditions mentioned under Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act is to be applied, a finding could be recorded that there 4 LAWS (P&H) 2018 8 143 5 (2020) 13 SCC 447 6 Crl.P.No.6059/2019 DD 12.11.2019 14 are no reasonable grounds for believing that he is guilty of such offences and since the petitioner is not having any criminal antecedents, it could be opined that there is no likelihood of he committing any offence, while on bail. Therefore, it is his contention that the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail.
14. 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
15. It is the contention of the prosecution that a credible information was received about a parcel lying in the foreign post office, Chamrajpet, Bengaluru, suspected 15 to have containing MDMA and when the parcel was opened, it contained in all 159 grams of MDMA, which is a commercial quantity. Samples were drawn and the bulk contraband was seized. It is stated that when the address of the consignee as mentioned in the parcel was verified, it was found that the petitioner was in occupation of the said premises. A search was held in the said premises. The statement of the petitioner was recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act. It is also found that the consignee Amitha Radhakrishnan was also residing in the said premises along with the petitioner and her statement was also recorded. On the basis of the statements of the petitioner and Amitha Radhakrishnan, their bank details were verified, wherein, it is found that the petitioner is dealing with not only his bank accounts, but also the bank accounts of Amitha Radhakrishnan, for depositing the proceeds earned from the sale of narcotic drugs. As per the letter of Deputy Commissioner of City Customs, PAD, Bengaluru, similar parcel was found unclaimed in the foreign post office addressed to Amitha Radhakrishnan and 16 it was found that the said parcel was containing 25 grams of ganja and the same was seized on 23.07.2020. It was also found that the petitioner having guilty mind had thrown his phone in the sewage, only with an intention to cause disappearance of the evidence of commission of offences and purchased a new phone. IMEI details relating to the mobile phone used by the petitioner discloses this fact. From all these materials on record, it is the contention of the prosecution that the petitioner being the accused used to book consignment containing the contraband from foreign countries through VICKR app and used to pay the consideration through BIT coin. The petitioner used to sell small quantities of the pills to the students in various colleges and used to earn huge amount, which used to be deposited in his bank account and also the bank account of Amitha Radhakrishnan.
16. In the light of the contentions of the prosecution, I have considered the materials that are placed before the Court. Admittedly, the consignment was 17 addressed to Amitha Radhakrishnan and not to the petitioner. Even the earlier parcel referred to by the prosecution which was said to have contained 25 grams of ganja, was also addressed to Amitha Radhakrishnan. It is stated that Amitha Radhakrishnan and the petitioner were in live-in relationship residing in the address mentioned in the parcel. It is stated that Amitha Radhakrishnan has given a statement that she was not aware of the bad deals that are being held by the petitioner, but, however, she says that it must be the petitioner who used to book the consignment in her name and used to manage her bank accounts. In support of the same, the prosecution is relying on two bank challans found in the house, where the petitioner was residing, according to which, on 24.01.2017 and on 25.01.2017, a sum of Rs.36,500/- and Rs.49,500/-
respectively credited in Karur Vysya Bank, where Amitha Radhakrishnan was having the account. The statements of the bank accounts relating to the petitioner and Amitha Radhakrishnan were collected, wherein, it is found that various amounts ranging from Rs.1,500/- to Rs.10,000/- 18 were being deposited regularly to the account. The total balance in the credit of the account in Kotak Mahindra Bank is ranging from Rs.1,45,000/- to Rs.1,60,000/-. It is pertinent to note that even though, it is contended that the petitioner used to book the consignment through VICKR app from foreign countries and used to pay the consideration through BIT coin, the same is on the basis of the statements of the petitioner and Amitha Radhakrishnan, under Section 67 of the NDPS Act. Even though, it is contended that the petitioner has thrown his mobile phone in sewage and using a new handset, the same is only probabalised by producing IMEI details to show the change in the said numbers. But, admittedly, no other materials are available as of now to substantiate the same.
17. In Ankush Kumar @ Sonu (supra), the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, considered the requirement of Section 37(1)(b) of NDPS Act, and under the facts and circumstance of the case, felt it proper to enlarge the 19 accused on bail, after recording its prima facie satisfaction that the petitioner is not involved in the case and that he was also implicated in a false case earlier. It was also opined that there is no likelihood of the accused committing the offence while on bail and accordingly, the accused was enlarged on bail. However, the Court categorically stated that it is not considering the constitutional validity of Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act and its discussion is only restricted to the bail application filed by the accused in light of the fundamental right guaranteed to any person under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
18. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Sujith Tiwari (supra) considered the ambit and application of Section 37 of NDPS Act, formed an opinion that since the prosecution is relying on few whatsapp messages and statement of the accused recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, there is a very little evidence available against the accused and therefore, there is reasonable possibility that he may be 20 acquitted. It was also felt that there is no possibility of re- committing any offence while on bail and under such circumstances, enlarged the accused on bail subject to stringent conditions, such as, furnishing the bail bond with two sureties, deposit of his passport, restrictions on his visit to other places other than Porbandar and Kolkata, providing his cell phone number to the police authorities and not to change the cell number without permission from the Trial Court, marking the attendance on daily basis in the police station, condition to join the investigation as and when called for, not to hamper or trying to interfere in the investigation, not to delay the trial etc., It is also held that if the accused violates any of these conditions, the NCB will be entitled to seek cancellation of bail.
19. In J Kannan (supra) the co-ordinate Bench of this Court, relying on the decision in Ankush Kumar @ Sony (supra) enlarged the accused on bail. 21
20. In Ram Samujh (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court considered the requirement of Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act, in light of the legislative intent to achieve the object mentioned in the statement of objects and reasons for introducing the bill for amendment and held in paras 5 to 8 as under:
"5. The jurisdiction of the Court to grant bail is circumscribed by the provision of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. It can be granted in a case where there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. It is the mandate of the legislature which is required to be followed. At this juncture a reference to Section 37 of the Act is apposite. That provision makes the offences under the Act cognizable and non-bailable. It reads thus:
"37. Offences to be cognizable and non- bailable:22
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: (2 of 1974)
(a) every offence punishable under this Act shall be cognizable;
(b) no person accused of an offence punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless;
(i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and
(ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.
(2) the limitations on granting of bail specified in clause (b) of sub- section (1) are in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 23 1974), or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail"
6. The aforesaid Section is incorporated to achieve the object as mentioned in the Statements of Objects and Reasons for introducing the Bill No.125/ 1988 thus:
"Even though the major offences are non-bailable by virtue of the level of punishment, on technical grounds, drug offenders were being released on bail. In the light of certain difficulties faced in the enforcement of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 the need to amend the law to further strengthen it, has been felt."
7. It is to be borne in mind that the aforesaid legislative mandate is required to be adhered to and followed. It should be borne in mind that in a murder case, the accused commits murder of one or two persons, while those persons who are dealing in narcotic drugs are instrumental in causing death or in inflicting death blow to a number of innocent young victims, who are vulnerable: it causes 24 deleterious effects and a deadly impact on the society; they are a hazard to the society; even if they are released temporarily, in all probability, they would continue their nefarious activities of trafficking and/or dealing in intoxicants clandestinely. Reason may be large stake and illegal profit involved. This Court, dealing with the contention with regard to punishment under the NDPS Act, has succinctly observed about the adverse effect of such activities in Durand Didien v. Chief Secretary. Union Territory of Goa as under:
"24. With deep concern, we may point out that the organised activities of the underworld and the clandestine smuggling of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances into this country and illegal trafficking in such drugs and substances have led to drug addiction among a sizeable section of the public, particularly the adolescents and students of both sexes and the menace has assumed serious and alarming proportion in the recent years. Therefore, in order to effectively control and eradicate this proliferating and booming devastating menace, causing deleterious 25 effects and deadly impact on the society as a whole, the Parliament in its wisdom, has made effective provisions by introducing this Act 81 of 1985 specifying mandatory minimum imprisonment and fine,"
8. To check the menace of dangerous drugs flooding the market, the Parliament has provided that the person accused of offences under the NDPS Act should not be released on bail during trial unless the mandatory conditions provided in Section 37, namely,
(i) there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such offence; and
(ii) that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail are satisfied. The High Court has not given any justifiable reason for not abiding by the aforesaid mandate while ordering the release of the respondent-accused on bail. Instead of attempting to take a holistic view of the harmful socio-economic consequences and health hazards which would accompany trafficking illegally in the dangerous drugs, 26 the Court should implement the law in the spirit with which the Parliament, after due deliberation, has amended."
21. In State of Kerala (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court once again considered the requirements of Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act, while dealing with bail application filed by the accused and referred to its earlier decision in Ram Samujh (supra) and held that satisfaction of twin requirements under Section 37(1)(b) is sine-qua- non for grant of bail. It is appropriate to extract paras 19 and 20 of the said judgment, which reads as under:
19. The scheme of Section 37 reveals that the exercise of power to grant bail is not only subject to the limitations contained under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C, but is also subject to the limitation placed by Section 37 which commences with non-obstante clause. The operative part of the said section is in the negative form prescribing the enlargement of bail to any person accused of commission of an offence under the Act, unless twin conditions are 27 satisfied. The first condition is that the prosecution must be given an opportunity to oppose the application; and the second, is that the Court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence. If either of these two conditions is not satisfied, the ban for granting bail operates.
20. The expression "reasonable grounds"
means something more than prima facie grounds. It contemplates substantial probable causes for believing that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence. The reasonable belief contemplated in the provision requires existence of such facts and circumstances as are sufficient in themselves to justify satisfaction that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence. In the case on hand, the High Court seems to have completely overlooked the underlying object of Section 37 that in addition to the limitations provided under Cr.P.C, or any other law for the time being in force, regulating the grant of bail, its liberal approach in the matter of bail under the NDPS Act is indeed uncalled for."28
22. In Lakhwinder Singh (supra), the Division Bench of High Court of Punjab and Haryana, again placed its reliance on Ram Samujh (supra) and held that Section 37 of the NDPS Act cannot be held as unconstitutional.
23. From these various verdicts of the Hon'ble Apex Court and the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, it is clear that the twin requirements under Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act, i.e., (i) there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such offence and that (ii) he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail, are to be satisfied while deciding the bail application filed by such accused.
24. In the present case, the prosecition has placed sufficient materials to show that the commercial quantity of contraband i.e., MDMS was seized from the parcel that was lying in the foreign post office. The prosecution is relying on the statements of the petitioner and Amitha Radhakrishnan to establish the link between the petitioner 29 and the offence in question. Even though, prima facie it is shown that the petitioner and Amitha Radhakrishnan were residing together in the address mentioned in the parcel, its contention that (i) the bank challans in question evidence the fact for having deposited the amount by the petitioner in the account of Amitha Radhakrishnan or (ii) the petitioner was maintaining the said accounts for the purpose of depositing the proceeds of sale of the contraband or (iii) the petitioner had discarded his earlier mobile phone with an intention to cause disappearance of the evidence or (iv) the petitioner is in the habit of booking the consignment containing the contraband from foreign countries through VICKR app and used to pay the price by BIT coin, are to be substantiated by the prosecution either by additional documents or by examining the charge sheet witnesses. But as of now, the materials that are placed before the Court are not sufficient to convict the petitioner or to hold him guilty. It is not the contention of the prosecution that the petitioner is having any criminal antecedents. Therefore, it can be held at this stage that he 30 is not likely to commit any offence, if he is enlarged on bail.
25. This Court is conscious of the fact that, it is not the stage either to declare the petitioner as innocent or guilty for the offences as alleged. At the initial stage of considering the bail application filed by the petitioner, prima facie satisfaction about the materials placed on record is to be looked into and on consideration of such materials, in light of the rival contentions, I am of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner is not guilty of such offences and that he is not likely to commit any offence, while on bail. When these twin conditions as under Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act are satisfied, I do not find any reason to reject the prayer made by the petitioner. Moreover, the investigation is already completed and the charge sheet is filed. The petitioner is in judicial custody since 20.08.2020. Admittedly, he is not having any criminal antecedents. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled 31 to be enlarged on bail subject to conditions, which will take care of the apprehension expressed by the learned CGSC that the petitioner may abscond, he may commit similar offences or may tamper or threaten the prosecution witnesses.
26. Accordingly, I answer the above point in 'Affirmative' and proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The petition is allowed.
The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in NCB.F.No.48/1/13/2020/BZU of Narcotics Control Bureau, Bengaluru Zonal Unit, Kattigenahalli, pending in Spl.C.C.No.165 of 2021 on the file of the XXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for NDPS, Bengaluru, on obtaining the 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, subject to the following conditions:32
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 Investigation Officer or the Court as and when required.
d). The petitioner shall mark his attendance before NCB, Bengaluru, once in 15 days i.e., on every 1st and 3rd Sunday between 10.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. till conclusion of the trial.
e) The petitioner shall no t leave the jurisdictio n of the Trial court without its prior permission, till conclusion of the trial.
If in case, the petitioner violates any of these conditions, the prosecution will be at liberty to move the Trial Court seeking cancellation of bail. 33
On furnishing the sure ties by the petitione r, the Trial Court is at libe rty to direct the Investigating Officer to verify the correctness of the addresses and authenticity of the documents furnished by the petitioner and the sureties and a report may be called fo r in that regard, which is to be submitted by the Investigating Office r within 5 days. The Trial Court on satisfactio n, may proceed to accept the sureties for the purpose of releasing the petitioner o n bail.
Sd/-
JUDGE *bgn/-