Karnataka High Court
Shivappa @ Shivanandappa S/O ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 26 August, 2020
Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 26 t h DAY OF AUGUST 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL PETITION No.100832/2020
BETWEEN:
SHIVAPPA @ SHIV ANANDAPPA
S/O FAKKIRAPPA S AVADATTI
AGE: 45 YEARS , OCC: A GRICULTURE,
R/O: MAVANUR, T Q: HUKKERI,
DIST: BELA GAVI.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. CHETAN MUNNOLI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUT OR,
HIGH COURT OF K ARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BEN CH, AT DHARWAD ,
THROUGH BYADA GI POLICE STATION .
... RES PONDENT
(BY SRI. RAMESH B. CHIGARI , HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C. SEEKIN G TO ENLARGE THE
PETITIONER/ACCUSED ON BAIL IN SPL.ND PS CAS E
NO.1/2011 ON T HE FILE OF THE PRL. DIST. &
SESSIONS JUDGE, HAVERI IN CRIME NO.59/2010
REGISTERED BY BYADAGI P.S . FOR THE OFFENCES
P/U/SEC.20(b) OF NARCOTIC DRUGS AN D
PSYCHOTROPI C S UBSTANCES ACT , 1985.
2
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR
ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed by accused No.1 under Section 439 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Cr.P.C.', for brevity) seeking bail in Spl.NDPS No.1/2011 pending on the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Haveri (Crime No.59/2010 by Byadagi Police Station) registered for the offences punishable under Section 20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the 'NDPS Act', for brevity).
2. The case of the prosecution is that the complainant namely S.L. Singhad, who was working as Dy.SP, Haveri, has filed a complaint before Byadagi Police on 08.06.2010 against the petitioner(accused No.1) and another person by name Hanumantappa 3 Bijannanavar (accused No.2) and the same has been registered in Byadati PS Crime No.59/2010 for an offence punishable under Section 20(b) of the NDPS Act. It is the averment in the complaint that the complainant got credible information that somebody were transporting bags of ganja from Holal to Shivamogga via Devargudda and Byadgi in a Maruti van. Immediately, he approached the SP, Haveri, and as per the advice of SP, Haveri, he went to Byadgi and secured two panchas and 3 police constables and intimated about the details of credible information received by him. The complainant gave 5 currency notes of Rs.1,000/- to Police Constable 987 and their number were noted and made a mark on the said currency notes and the said police constable was directed to act as a customer for purchasing ganja with the people who are traveling in the van. After a short period of time, PC 987 intimated the complainant that they had stopped the van which was transporting ganja and immediately 4 the complainant went to the spot with panchas and one person, who was in Maruti van, seeing the police jeep ran away from the spot and another person, who was driving the van, was caught by the police and he told his name and also told the name of one Sri. Shivappa as the owner of the said bags and that he had arranged the car for transporting the said ganja for Rs.6,000/- and also told them that when the police gave currency notes to Shivappa, Shivappa had given the said 5 currency notes to him as rent of the vehicle and presented those currency notes before the complainant and the said currency notes were tallied with the currencies notes given to PC 987 and they were the same currency notes. One bag was weighing 36 kgs and another bag was weight 10 kg. 100 g in each of the bags were taken as sample and both were packed separately and seizure mahazar was held. Thereafter, the complainant lodged a complaint before the Byadgi police and after investigation, the Investigating Officer filed charge sheet 5 against the petitioner-accused No.1 and Hanumantappa Bijannanavar-accused No.2 for an offence under Section 20(b) of the NDPS Act. The petitioner is shown as accused No.1 and Hanumantappa Bijannanavar as accused No.2 in the charge sheet. The said case is numbered as Spl.(NDPS) No.5/2010 and it was pending before the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Haveri. On 26.02.2011, the learned District and Sessions Judge, Haveri, ordered for split up of the charge sheet against accused No.1 and the PSI, Byadgi, filed split up charge sheet against accused No.1 and it came to be numbered as Spl.(NDPS) No.1/2011. The case registered against accused No.2 in Spl.(NDPS) No.5/2010 has been disposed of convicting accused No.2 and imposing sentence and fine on 07.02.2015. As the petitioner/accused No.1 did not appear in Spl.(NDPS) No.1/2011, the Court recorded evidence of the witnesses under Section 299 of Cr.P.C. in the absence of accused No.1. The petitioner/accused No.1 6 came to be arrested and produced on 10.03.2020. The petitioner moved bail application before the trial Court and the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Haveri, rejected the bail application by order dated 15.04.2020. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court seeking bail.
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that only on the basis of the statement of accused No.2, the petitioner/accused No.1 is implicated. It is his further submission that nothing has been seized from the petitioner. It is his further submission that the petitioner is ready to co-operate with the trial and prayed to grant bail subject to conditions.
7
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader submitted that the offence alleged against the petitioner is a heinous offence and more so, accused No.2 has been convicted for an offence under Section 20(b) of the NDPS Act. It is his further submission that there is prima facie case against the petitioner. It is his further submission that even though accused No.1 was knowing the pendency of the case against him, has not appeared and therefore, there is delay in disposal of the case registered against him. It is his further submission that if the petitioner is granted bail, he will flee from justice and will not be available for trial. With this, he prayed to dismiss the petition.
6. Having regard to the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader, this Court has gone through the charge sheet records. Charge sheet has been filed against the petitioner showing him as 8 accused No.1 and Hanumantappa Bijannanavar as accused No.2 and it came to be numbered as Spl.(NDPS) No.5/2010. As the petitioner did not appear in the said case, the case against him was split up and split up charge sheet has been filed and it came to be numbered as Spl.(NDPS) No.1/2011. The petitioner had approached this Court in Crl.P.No.8105/2010 seeking anticipatory bail and this Court by order dated 16.11.2010 rejected the said petition. The very said aspect goes to show that the petitioner/accused No.1 was aware of the pendency of the case. Though Spl.(NDPS) No.1/2011 was pending since the year 2011, the petitioner/accused No.1 did not chose to appear in the said case. The trial Court recorded the evidence of witnesses under Section 299 of Cr.P.C. in the absence of accused No.1 and subsequently with the permission of the High Court, the case came to be transferred to long pending register. Thereafter, the petitioner came to be arrested on 10.03.2020. The bail application filed by 9 him came to be rejected by the trial Court on 15.04.2020. The petitioner, even though, was aware of the pendency of the case registered against him, has not chosen to appear in the said case. The conviction of accused No.2 in Spl.(NDPS) No.5/2010 itself establishes that there is prima facie case against the petitioner/accused No.1. Due to the said conduct of the petitioner, the case registered against him is kept pending for 10 long years. If the petitioner/accused No.1 is granted bail, he will again flee from justice and will not be available for trial. The petitioner has not made out any ground for grant of bail.
Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE kmv