Karnataka High Court
Suraj Kallappa Agasar vs The State Of Karnataka on 3 September, 2019
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2019 KAR 1425
Author: K.Somashekar
Bench: K. Somashekar
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 3 R D DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2019
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. SOMASHEKAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.101577/2019
BETWEEN:
SURAJ KALLAPPA AGASAR,
AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: CIVIL ENGINEER,
R/O: ASHIRWAD BUILDING,
SIDDESHWAR NAGAR,
KAKATI, TQ & DIST: BELAGAVI.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SANTOSH B.RAWOOT , ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY THROUGH
INVESTIGATION OFFICER
MALAMARUTI POLI CE STATION,
BELAGAVI , THROUGH STATE PUBLI C
PROSECUT OR, HIGH COURT BENCH, DHARWAD.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI RAJA RAGHAVENDRA NAIK, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC.439 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO ALLOW THE PETITION AND THE
PETITIONER / ACCUSED NO.2 BE ENLARGE ON BAIL IN
CONNECTI ON WITH MALAMARUTI P.S. CRIM E
NO.86/ 2019 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/SECTION 20B OF
NARCOTIC DRUGS AND PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES
ACT, 1985 PENDING ON THE FILE OF II ADDL.
DISTRICT & SESSI ONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
:2:
ORDER
This is a petition filed by the petitioner - accused No.2 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in Malamaruthi P.S. Crime No.86/2019 for the offence punishable under Section 20B of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The accused is in judicial custody since from the date of his arrest. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner is praying for enlargement of the petitioner on regular bail among the grounds urged therein.
2. It is stated in the complaint that the complainant-the Police Inspector of Malmaruthi P.S. received credible information on 16.07.2019 at about 19:40 hours that one person by name Akhilahamad Kutubuddin Munavalli-accused No.1, the resident of Amaan Nagar Belagavi was possessing ganja in a plastic bag for selling the same, he had come :3: near Kunda Hotel at Azadnagar. The Police Inspector had intimated the same information to his higher officials. Thereafter, the complainant formed a team by securing panchas and went to the scene of crime, where at 21:15 hours, they saw a person holding a plastic bag coming near the spot and the said person was waiting for some other persons and after few minutes, the raiding team saw two persons coming on the motorcycle and those two persons collected two separate plastic bags and in return they paid him money and thus seeing these persons, the raiding team caught them on the spot, where the present petitioner was also apprehended, as he was the pillion rider. Thereafter, in the presence of panchas, 270 grams of ganja worth of Rs.2,700/- and one POCO mobile handset was seized from the custody of the petitioner - accused No.3. :4:
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has not at all committed the alleged offence and there are no direct overt acts attributed against the petitioner in committing the alleged offences. The accused is no way connection with the alleged offence. It is found that 270 grams of ganja worth of Rs.2,700/- was in the possession of the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner is the only earning member in the family, if the said petitioner is supposed to be kept behind the bar for a longer period, then the family members of the petitioner would loose their bread winner to eke out their life. It is submitted that the co-accused have already been granted bail by this Court by imposing certain conditions as specified therein in Criminal Petition No.101474/2019 disposed of on 21.08.2019 and Criminal Petition :5: No.101535/2019 disposed of on 22.08.2019, as this accused as well as those accused are on the similar footing for the aforesaid offences. Lastly, the learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody since from the date of arrest and he is ready to abide by any terms and conditions imposed by this Court, while granting bail to him. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner prayed to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
4. Per contra, learned HCGP for the State has taken me through the averments made in the complaint and so also the FIR said to be recorded by the police. He submits that this accused has been involved in an offence by carrying the ganja, which has been seized from his possession weighing 270 grams worth of Rs.2,700/- found in a plastic bag. It is further submitted that merely because of only the :6: quantity of 270 grams of ganja has been seized from the petitioner-accused No.2, it cannot be a ground to seek regular bail, as it is a menace in the society. Ganja have been seized by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation, it amounts to 1 kg 540 grams from the accused persons, who are involved. That itself indicates that there are prima facie materials against the accused to commit the alleged offences. Moreover, the accused by avocation as a Civil Engineer as this accused was also involved in a heinous offence in carrying the ganja. These are all the contentions taken by the learned HCGP and sought for dismissal of the bail petition.
5. Having regard to these strenuous contention taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is relevant to state that on an enquiry with accused No.1 namely, Akhilahmed :7: Kutubudin Munvalli, he given an information to the police authorities that another two persons used to carry ganja from him and also indicates the particulars relating to those accused. Based upon an information given by accused No.1 and so also enquiry made by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation, the police have seized the ganja amounting to 1 kg 540 grams from the person of the accused respectively. But this petitioner being arraigned as accused No.2 and the Investigating Officer has been seized the ganja weighing 270 grams from the plastic packet found in his possession. However, co-accused Nos.3 and 5 have already been granted bail by this Court by imposing certain suitable conditions. This contention is taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner, which is stated supra. Therefore, at this stage, it is said that it does not require any detailed discussion :8: while considering the bail petition filed by the petitioner. Subsequent to registration of the case against the accused, the case is still under investigation by the Investigating Officer and moreover, the Investigating Officer is required to secure material documents, which has been subjected to chemical examination and also to secure FSL report. Therefore, it is said that there are substances in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner seeking for the relief of bail.
6. Whereas, the learned HCGP submits that if the petitioner is supposed to be released on bail, certainly he would come in the way of prosecution case and would destroy the evidence. As this apprehension expressed by the learned HCGP, could be curtailed by imposing certain suitable conditions to safeguard the interest of the prosecution. :9: Therefore, for the aforesaid reasons as well as under the circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner deserves for bail. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The petition filed by the petitioner under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. is allowed, subject to the following conditions:
(i) The petitioner shall execute a bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-
with like sum surety to the satisfaction of the Court of the II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi in Crime No.86/2019 of Malamaruthi P.S.
(ii) The petitioner shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation.: 10 :
(iii) The petitioner shall not tamper or hamper the case of prosecution witnesses.
(iv) The petitioner shall appear before the concerned Court on all the dates of hearing without fail.
(v) The petitioner shall mark his attendance once in fortnight as per the English monthly calendar in between 10:00 a.m. and 05:00 p.m. before the concerned SHO for a period of three months.
(vi) The petitioner shall not indulge with any other criminal activities henceforth.
(vii) If the petitioner violates any of the above conditions, the bail order shall automatically stands ceased.
SD JUDGE CLK