Karnataka High Court
Bala Subramaniyan Nehrupandian vs The Intelligence Officer on 28 July, 2021
Author: K.Natarajan
Bench: K. Natarajan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JULY, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN
CRIMINAL PETITION No.7669/2020
BETWEEN:
BALA SUBRAMANIYAN NEHRUPANDIAN,
S/O. NEHRUPANDIAN,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.3/7,
NOUTH PALLIYA MEDU,
THIRUTHURAIPOONDI TALUK,
UDAYAMARTHANDAPURAM,
THILLAIVILAGAM, THIRUVARUR,
TAMIL NADU-614 706.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI TEJAS N., ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER,
D.R.I., BANGALORE ZONAL UNIT,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
REPRESENTED BY LEARNED
SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI AMIT ANAND DESHPANDE, CGSC)
2
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 439 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE,
PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN
CRIME NO.F.NO.DRI/BZU/S-IV/ENQ-09 (INT-02) OF
2020 (SPL.C.C.NO.769 OF 2020) OF DIRECTORATE OF
REVENUE INTELLIGENCE, BENGALURU, FOR THE
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 8(c), 9A,
21(c), 22(c), 23(c), 25A, 27, 28 AND 29 OF THE
N.D.P.S. ACT.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD
AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 23.07.2021 AND
COMING FOR PRONOUNCEMENT, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., for granting bail in Crime No. F.No. DRI/ BZU / S-IV/ ENQ-09/ (INT-02) / 2020, registered by Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Bangalore Zonal Unit, Bangalore, presently pending on the file of XXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for NDPS Cases, (CCH-33), Bengaluru in Spl.CC.No.769/2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 9A, 21(c), 22(c), 3 23(c), 25A, 27, 28 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short 'NDPS' Act)
2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for petitioner and the learned Special Counsel appearing for the respondent.
3. The case of the prosecution is that one Nagesh Rao Kadiri, Intelligence Officer (IO), Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), Bengaluru Zonal Unit, Bangalore issued credible information that a parcel came to the premises of DHL Express India Pvt. Ltd., Yeshwanthpur, Bengaluru that one Indian National by name Sri. Ayyappaan Ramalingam, S/o. Ramalingam, a resident of Tamil Nadu is trying to export Contraband Narcotic drugs/substance prohibited under the NDPS Act to one John Andrews of Australia vide courier Airway Bill No.3648014812 through DHL Courier 4 Service. Based upon the information, I.O. called two witnesses Veeresh and Basavaraju to the DHL Express Office at Yeshwanthpur, Bangalore and verified the consignment by opening the parcel which was packed weighing, 14 kgs consisting of kitchen utensils which were 65 in number and they also scanned the item with scanning machine. The utensils indicated the presence of concealments hidden within, which was opened and found the ITEMISER 4DXmachine 'RAPISCAN' make, which is exclusively used for detection of Narcotics drugs and it was indicated positive for the 'Substances Detected' as MDMA/MDA.
4. On opening of the boxes which were contained the 'Pseudoephedrine' of 526 grams in one packet, 215 grams in second packet, 222 grams in third packet and 818 grams in fourth packet. The same was seized which contained 1741 grams. Thereafter a detailed mahazar has been prepared and 5 was valued at Rs.18,70,050/- and on by detecting the KYC documents they traced the address given by the consigner and arrested the petitioner and he was remanded to judicial custody. The respondent - police also investigated the matter and filed the complaint. During the investigation it is also revealed that they went to the address given by the petitioner and it was revealed that this petitioner consigning the contraband substances to his brother who was in Australia. He has purchased from one Rahman and exported the same along with the utensils by hiding inside the utensils. The petitioner also found in question of various KYC and other documents in name of various persons for the purpose of consignment, though the kitchen article were sent in the name of one John Andrews in Australia but the same was sent by petitioner to his own brother Bharathi at Australia. Therefore, he was charge sheeted for the aforesaid offences. The petitioner 6 approached the Sessions Judge, which came to be rejected.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is innocent and there is a discrepancy in the information received by the I.O. whether it was on 20.06.2020 or 15.05.2020, as the date in the complaint mentioned the date as 20.06.2020 whereas remand application contains the date as 15.05.2020. Though the information received in May month they kept quite for more than one month and also contended that information was not reduced in writing for the purpose of FIR. There is gross violation of mandatory provisions. Therefore, on that ground also the petitioner is entitled for bail. He further contended that the drugs which was seized is not Narcotic drugs but it is a Controlled Substance and it cannot be considered as the offence under Section 27A of the NDPS Act for bringing bar under Section 37 of 7 NDPS Act. The offence Controlled Substances Act is punishable only for 10 years as per Section 25A of the NDPS Act and petitioner is in judicial custody for almost one year. He is ready to abide by conditions. Hence, prayed for granting bail.
6. Per Contra learned Special counsel appearing the respondent appearing for the respondent seriously objected the bail petition and contended that there is some error in the date of information received by the I.O., between the complaint as well as in the remand application but the date is 20.06.2020. The entire documents produced by the I.O., reveals the information was received on 20.06.2020 but not 15.05.2020. Any violation of provision of Section 42, it has to be considered only during the trial but not during the bail. The petitioner involved in commission of offence, almost 1787 grams of contraband articles were seized which was hidden in the kitchen utensils, 8 dosa maker. The petitioner was the person who booked the parcel and the same was shown addressee as one Australian person, but infact the consignee was his own brother. In spite of issue of notice to his brother he is not appearing before the I.O., still he is absconding. The involvement of the petitioner in this offence has to be established by the prosecution. The parcel was booked through Trichy Blue-Dart Branch and routed through Blue-Dart, Devanahalli and the same has been received through shipment Way-Bill No.3648014812 dated 18.6.2020. The petitioner dispatched the parcel from Marudur Therku, Vedaranyam TK, Nagapattinam, Boovandevankadu, Tamil Nadu, which is a remote place where there is no proper inspection of the materials. The I.O., examined one Jayakumar of Thayar Agencies regarding, on 25.6.2020 where it is revealed that this petitioner came for dispatching the material. The investigation also 9 reveals the petitioner exporting these kitchen utensils by hiding the contraband articles in the name of some fictitious person in Australia, but in fact it was sent to his own brother Bharathi who is in Australia as a Taxi Driver. It is also revealed from the investigation that at the request of his brother he used to meet Rehman at Trichy Central Bus stand and received the Contraband articles and he also gave money by one Rehman. He has visited the Malaysia thrice. The investigation reveals that in the name of different persons consignment were sent to Australia in the name of Paulraj, Gopinath, BharathiNehrupandi, Kenvin Sing and John Andrews but the entire articles were issued by his own brother. The petitioner himself has sent the articles in various name. Now the investigation is completed, the complaint has been filed for the alleged offences punishable u/S 25A of the NDPS Act. The article seized is Controlled Substance as per 10 Section 9A of the NDPS Act. The learned Special counsel appearing for the respondent also observed that Controlled Substance is mixed with 'METAMORPHIC' and WATER, it became Narcotic Drugs. The Controlled Substance is up to 75% of the Narcotic drug is considered that the offence is heinous one and other accused are still absconding and not yet arrested. The learned respondent counsel submits that address of the petitioner is near to the Nagapattinam, Tamil Nadu which is very near to Srilanka. If the petitioner granted bail there is every possibility of absconding and flee from justice is not ruled out.
7. Therefore considering the entire aspect, I am of the view that the petitioner has not made out any good ground and he is involved in the heinous offence and Smuggling of Controlled Substance which is more than commercial quantity and used to send consignment in the name of fictitious person, though it 11 was actually sent to his own brother. Therefore, I am of the view that the petitioner is not entitled for bail as he is involved in serious offences and other accused are still absconding.
Accordingly the petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE AS/KSS