Karnataka High Court
Sri. Vastavayi Siva Ramakrishna Parama ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 16 August, 2017
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.SUDHINDRARAO
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.200880/2017
BETWEEN:
Sri. Vastavayi Siva Ramakrishna Parama Varma
S/o Rama Bhadra Raju,
Age: 44 years, R/o Flat No.101,
Sai Datta Residency, Spring Field Colony,
Jeedimetla village, Qutubullapur,
Ranga Reddy, Telangana-500055.
... Petitioner
(By Arun Choudapurkar, Advocate)
AND:
The State of Karnataka
By N.C.B. Bangalore Unit
Through Special Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Karnataka, Kalaburagi Bench,
Kalaburagi.
... Respondent
(By Sri. Sheshadri Jaishankar, HCGP)
2
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
439 OF CR.P.C. R/W SECTION 37 OF NDPS ACT, PRAYING
TO ALLOW THE BAIL PETITION AND RELEASE HIM ON
BAIL IN SPECIAL CASE (NDPS) NO.116/2017 ON THE FILE
OF PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE AT RAICHUR FOR THE
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 9(A) R/W SECTION 25A
AND 29 OF THE NARCOTIC DRUGS AND PSYCHOTROPIC
SUBSTANCES ACT 1985.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP for the respondent.
2. The present petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for the relief of bail in Spl. Case (NDPS) No.116/2017 on the file of the learned Prl. Sessions Judge at Raichur for the offences punishable under Section 9(A) R/w Section 25A and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985.
3. The complainant in this case is a public servant in the rank of Intelligence Officer, Narcotics 3 Control Bureau, Bangalore Zonal Unit, Bangalore and the complaint is against Vastavayi Siva Rama Krishna Parama Varma and Madderla Shankar.
4. It is stated that the complainant agency consisting of officers of Narcotics Control Bureau on 07.02.2017 by securing the presence of two mahazar, witnesses by virtue of a definite information regarding of storing narcotics proceeded to the factory premises of M/s Venus Chemicals & Drugs (P) Ltd., Raichur, wherein the accused No.1 being the owner of the said premises has leased out the same to the accused No.2 and there was a criminal conspiracy between the accused persons about manufacturing large quantities of illegal drugs and they were in possession of nine bags of Ephedrine and on conducting search, they found several materials of Narcotics which were seized under the mahazar after taking samples and on the above 4 basis a case came to be registered wherein the petitioner along with accused No.2 were remanded to judicial custody. They moved bail application before the Trial court, same was rejected. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under sections 25A and 29 of the NDPS Act.
25A. Punishment for contravention of orders made under section 9A. - If any person contravenes an order made under section 9A, he shall be punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine which may extend to one lakh rupees;
Provided that the court may, for reasons to be recorded in the judgment, impose a fine exceeding one lakh rupees.] 5
29. Punishment for abetment and criminal conspiracy - (1). - Whoever abets, or is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable under this Chapter, shall, whether such offence be or be not committed in consequence of such abetment or in pursuance of such criminal conspiracy, and notwithstanding anything contained in section 116 of the Indian penal Code (45 of 1860), be punishable with the punishment provided for the offence.
(2) A person abets, or is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit, an offence, within the meaning of this section, who, in India abets or is a party to the criminal conspiracy to the commission of any act in a place without and beyond India which -
6
(a) would constitute an offence if committed within India; or
(b) under the laws of such place, is an offence relating to narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances having all the legal conditions required to constitute it such an offence the same as or analogous to the legal conditions required to constitute it an offence punishable under this Chapter, if committed within India.
5. Thus the Intelligence Officer of narcotics Control Bureau, Bangalore Zonal Unit, Bangalore has complained that the accused being the entrepreneurs had licenses to deal with certain permitted chemicals only, but they traded and dealt in narcotics. The apprehension of the prosecution is that the accused 7 persons, may venture for aggravated offences, if they are let free on bail.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however would submit that Co-ordinate bench of this court granted relief of bail to the accused No.2 who is said to be the owner of the premises and accused No.1 who is lessee, criminal conspiracy between them is complained. Having regard to the nature of the offences as to whether it is Narcotic drug or Psychotropic Substance, this court observed in Criminal Petition No.200811/2017 filed by the accused No.2 as under:
In the case of Paulus Andrias S/o Late Lucas Andrias vs Intelligence Officer, in riminal petition No. 6482/2016, wherein, the Co- ordinate bench of this Court has held that Ephedrine is a controlled substance and as rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the 8 petitioner, it is neither a narcotic drug nor a psychotropic substance under the NDPS Act. The alleged offences are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life and whether it is going to cover the NDPS Act or not is a matter.
7. It is to be noted that the nature of the Chemical Farm as to whether it is the controlled substance or banned or Narcotic is to be adjudicated in a full fledged trial.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in so far as the accused No.2 is concerned he was enlarged on bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. by a Co-ordinate Bench of this court and submits the gravity and impact has been considered in Criminal Petition No.200811/2017 and the petitioner in this case 9 is standing on the same footing, he may be granted benefit of parity.
The result of the substance seized is as follows.
12. Results of Examination The Exhibits were analyzed by Libermann's Test, UV-Visible Spectrophotometry and Gas Chromatographny - Mass Spectrometry (GC-MS) methods. Based on the above methods, the results obtained are given below:
1. Ephedrine has been detected in the Exhibits - S-1, S-3, S-5, S-7, S-9, S-
11, S-13, S-15, S-17 and S-19.
Note: The details of tests conducted are attached as Annexure-I.
9. In the context of circumstances of assessing is that in so far as investigation is that the investigation is resolved the second one is impact of the offences. 10
10. Further the investigation of the case was concluded while the petitioner and the other accused were in judicial custody. Thus there was no likelihood of interference to investigate. In the context and circumstances, I am of the opinion that if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, no prejudice will be caused to the prosecution. However its apprehension would be resolved by imposing conditions. Hence the bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. by the petitioner is hereby allowed with the following...
Conditions
a) The petitioner shall execute a personal
bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-
(Rupees One Lakh only) with two
solvent sureties possessing immovable property for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court;
b) It is made clear that in case any criminal case registered against the 11 petitioner relating to similar or other offences benefit of bail shall ipso facto stand cancelled.
c) He shall not tamper or terrorize the prosecution witnesses.
d) He shall surrender his Passport in the trial court.
e) He shall not leave the State of Karnataka without prior permission of Trial Court.
Sd/-
JUDGE SMP