Karnataka High Court
Mahantesh S/O Amarappa Anwargouda vs The State Of Karnataka on 3 June, 2021
Author: Rajendra Badamikar
Bench: Rajendra Badamikar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JUNE, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR
CRIMINAL PETITION No.200422/2021
BETWEEN:
Mahantesh
S/o. Amarappa Anwargouda
Age: 51 years, Occ: Priest
R/o. LBS Nagar Raichur
Tq: & District: Raichur
... Petitioner
(By Sri S. S. Aspalli, Advocate)
AND:
The State of Karnataka Through
Saidapur Police Station
Represented by Addl. SPP
High Court of Karnataka
Kalaburagi Bench
... Respondent
(By Sri Gururaj V. Hasilkar, HCGP)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of
Cr.P.C. praying to allow the bail petition and release the
petitioner on anticipatory bail in Crime No.120/2020 for
the offences punishable under Sections 20 (a) and (b) of
2
NDPS Act of Saidapur police station, pending on the the
file of Sessions Judge, Yadgiri.
This petition coming on for Orders this day, the
Court made the following:
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for enlarging him on bail in Saidapur police station Crime No.120/2020 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 20 (a) and (b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'NDPS Act').
2. The factual matrix leading to this case are that on 18.09.2020, the complainant, who is the CPI of Gurmitkal, visited the Saidapur police station and there he received a credible information that Ganja plants were illegally grown within the Belagundi village limits. Immediately, he sought permission from the Dy.S.P. for raid and after obtaining the permission, along with his staff and Tahasildar and also staff of the Tahasildar, went to 3 Sy.No.345/5 of Belagundi village at 5.30 p.m. and there they found 41 wet Ganja plants being grown and the said property was owned by Shree Shivasidda Someshwara Mukti Math. The Ganja plants were grown on both side of the Math and as well as on the back side of the Math and it is alleged that nobody was present in the said Math. Then in the presence of the panchas, the Investigating Officer uprooted 41 wet Ganja plants, which were weighing 2 kg. 10 grams. Out of that, one kilogram of Ganja was taken as sample and drawn a panchanama. It is further alleged that some Sadhus used to visit the said Math. Hence, the complainant has lodged a complaint and on the basis of the same, crime was registered in Saidapur police station Crime No.120/2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 20 (a) and (b) of the NDPS Act.
3. Subsequently, the Investigating Officer has arrested the present petitioner on 25.01.2021 at 4.00 p.m. and the accused/petitioner was remanded to judicial custody. The present petitioner has moved a regular bail 4 petition before the Sessions Judge, Yadgiri and same was rejected by order dated 16.02.2021. Hence, the petitioner has filed this petition before this Court. It is also evident that the charge sheet was also submitted to the Court on 30.01.2021. The present petitioner was apprehended only on the basis of his confession statement and he is implicated in this case.
4. Heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent - State and also perused the records.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case for malafide intention. It is also contended that the petitioner is in no way concerned with Shree Shivasidda Someshwara Mukti Math and there are no reasonable grounds regarding he growing Ganja plants and he is in judicial custody since 25.01.2021. Hence, he has sought for admitting the petitioner on bail. 5
6. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader opposed the bail petition on the ground that the petitioner has grown Ganja plants in the land of Shree Shivasidda Someshwara Mukti Math without obtaining permission from the competent authority and the alleged offences are heinous in nature and in case, the petitioner is enlarged on bail, there is every possibility of he tampering the prosecution witnesses and jumping bail. Hence, he has sought for rejection of the bail petition.
7. Having heard the arguments and perusing the records, it is evident that the raid was conducted in Sy.No.345/5 of Belagundi village on 18.09.2020, at about 5.30 p.m., which was owned by Shree Shivasidda Someshwara Mukti Math. Further, as per the case of the prosecution, 41 wet Ganja plants were grown there and they were seized by uprooting, which were weighing 2 kgs. and 10 grams and 1 kg was taken as sample for sending the same for FSL examination. It is also alleged that Sadhus used to visit the said Math. Now the prosecution is 6 asserting that the accused/petitioner has grown Ganja plants in the land belonging to Math. It is an undisputed fact that the land is owned by the said Math. Very interestingly, the Investigating Officer has not recorded the statement of any office bearers, who were involved in the management of the said Math to ascertain as to who were in possession of the Math property bearing No.345/5. No evidence is placed to show that the said land has been given to the present petitioner/accused by the Math for growing any crop including Ganja plants. It is interesting to note here that the Investigating Officer only on the basis of the alleged confession statement of the accused/petitioner has implicated him in this case.
8. Admittedly, the land in question belongs to the said Math. The present petitioner/accused may be a devotee of the said Math but he is the resident of Raichur. No evidence is forthcoming to show that it is the petitioner, who has grown Ganja plants. The investigating officer has not bothered even to enquire with the 7 administrator of the Math regarding possessor of the land in question and it appears that the Investigating Agency is not interested in go to the root of the matter. No evidence is placed to show that the petitioner is the possessor of the Math land and the property is not recovered from his possession. Under these circumstances, merely because the offences alleged are under the provision of the NDPS Act, the prayer of the petitioner for grant of bail cannot be rejected as no prima facie evidence is forthcoming to link him with the alleged offences. The petitioner is already in custody since long time and as such, the petition needs to be allowed and accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in Saidapur police station Crime No.120/2020 of Yadgiri district, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 20 (a) and (b) of NDPS Act, pending on the file of Sessions Judge, Yadgiri, on his executing personal bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/- with one 8 surety for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court subject to following conditions:
i) The petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly;
ii) The petitioner shall appear before the Trial Court on all the hearing dates without fail, unless he was specifically exempted by the Court;
iii) The petitioner shall not indulge in any criminal activities.
Sd/-
JUDGE Srt