Karnataka High Court
Rahul Tulasiram Sharma vs The State Of Karnataka on 21 July, 2022
Author: H.P. Sandesh
Bench: H.P. Sandesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JULY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5137/2022
BETWEEN:
RAHUL TULASIRAM SHARMA
S/O TULASIRAM
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
UJO ESSAR P.G.ROOM NO.306
BEHIND LAKSHMI THEATRE
B.T.M. LAYOUT
BENGALURU-560 068. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI DAYANAND HIREMATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
SUB-INSPECTOR, KUMARSWAMY
LAYOUT POLICE STATION,
BENGALURU-560 078,
REPRESENTED BY SPP.,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU-560 001. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439
OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN
CR. NO.20/2021 OF KUMARASWAMY LAYOUT P.S., BENGALURU
CITY FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 22(C) OF NARCOTIC DRUGS AND
PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES ACT, 1985 AND SECTION 27A OF
2
NARCOTIC DRUGS AND PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES ACT
1985, PENDING BEFORE HON'BLE XXXIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE FOR NDPS CASES,
BENGALURU IN SPL.C.C.NO.1672/2021.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., seeking regular bail of the petitioner/accused No.1 in Crime No.20/2021 of Kumaraswamy Layout Police Station, Bengaluru City, for the offences punishable under Sections 22(C), 27(A) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ('the NDPS Act' for short).
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent/State.
3. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is that on credible information, raid was conducted and 334 LSD strips are seized at the instance of this petitioner on 18.01.2021 and also a cash of Rs.530/-. Based on the voluntary statement of this petitioner, accused No.2 was apprehended. Subsequently, 3 the room of accused No.1 was subjected to raid and found 9310 LSD strips. Hence, filed the charge-sheet against accused Nos.1 and 2.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that this Court granted bail in favour of accused No.2 in Crl.P.No.4260/2022 vide order dated 07.07.2022. This petitioner is in custody from 18.01.2021 and investigation has already been completed and charge-sheet is also filed and no need of further custodial trial and no other criminal antecedents against this petitioner. Hence, he may be enlarged on bail.
5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State would submit that accused No.2 was granted bail, since no LSD strips are seized at the instance of accused No.2 and only an amount of Rs.27,50,000/- was seized at the instance of accused No.2. This Court while granting bail taken note of only the voluntary statement of accused No.1. Hence, exercised the discretion. The order passed by this Court will not come to the aid of this petitioner. Learned High Court Government Pleader for the State also would submit that not 4 only seized 334 LSD strips and a cash of Rs.530/- and a raid was conducted on the room of this petitioner, wherein, they found 9310 LSD strips. In all, the total quantity of LSD strips is 2.793 grams and the same is a commercial quantity and 0.1 gram is a commercial quantity. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled for bail.
6. Having heard the respective counsel and also on perusal of the material available on record, at the first instance LSD 334 strips were seized at the instance of this petitioner and cash. Apart from that, 9310 LSD strips was also seized at the instance of accused No.1 and both are commercial quantity. The learned High Court Government Pleader for the State would submit that the same is little higher side and commercial quantity is 0.1 gram and including the earlier seizure as well as subsequent seizure it comes to huge quantity i.e., 2.793 grams. It is also important to note that the LSD strips are the manufactured drug and the offence is against the Society at large. The very special enactment brought into force when the IPC offences are inadequate to meet the drug trafficking which 5 affect the Society at large, a special enactment is brought into force. Section 37 of the NDPS Act says that the accused has to make out a case to enlarge him on bail. In the case on hand, seizure is to the tune of 2.793 grams of commercial quantity and manufactured drug, if it is circulating and trafficking in the Society, it affects the Society at large. The very purpose of bringing this special enactment to combat the drug trafficking would be defeated; it he is enlarged on bail, when there is a prima facie material available on record. Mere completion of investigation is not a ground to enlarge the petitioner on bail when the manufactured drug is seized at the instance of this petitioner that too from his conscious possession. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the order passed by this Court in Crl.P.No.4260/2022 vide order dated 07.07.2022 will not come to the aid of this petitioner, wherein, only the prosecution relied upon the voluntary statement of this petitioner against accused No.2. Hence, granted bail and no seizure at the instance of accused No.2.
6
7. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:
ORDER The bail petition is rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE cp*