Karnataka High Court
Darshithmitha B.K. vs The State Of Karnataka on 4 October, 2016
Author: R.B Budihal
Bench: R.B Budihal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION No.5004/2016
BETWEEN:
Darshithmitha B.K.,
D/o Sh. Kanthraj. B.T.,
Aged about 26 years,
R/o No.14/4, 3rd Cross,
3rd Floor, Lingappa Block,
Devegowda Road,
R.T. Nagar,
Bengaluru - 560 031. ... Petitioner
(By Sri. Ashok Haranahalli, Sr. Counsel a/w
Sri. Pruthvi Wodeyar, Adv.)
AND:
The State of Karnataka,
Represented by
Intelligence Officer,
Bangalore Zonal Unit,
Bangalore - 01. ... Respondent
(By Sri. K.N. Mohan, Spl. PP)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439
of Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in
NCB.F.No.58/1/17/2015/BZU of State by Intelligence
2
Officer, Bangalore for the offence P/U/S 8(C) r/w 27,
27(A), 29 and 32B(d) of N.D.P.S. Act.
This Criminal Petition coming on for orders this
day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
This is the petition filed by petitioner - accused No.5 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking her release on bail of the alleged offences punishable under Section 8(c) r/w Sections 27, 27(a) 29, 32(d) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short "NDPS Act") registered by the respondent Intelligence Officer, Bengaluru Zonal Unit in NCB.F.No.58/1/17/2015/BZU.
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case as per the complaint averments are that on 30.11.2015 on the basis of secret and reliable information received, the Narcotics Control Bureau (for short "NCB") Bengaluru Zonal Unit seized LSD Paper Blot, Cocaine, MDMA and Hashish in large Quantity from the house of the present 3 petitioner in R.T. Nagar and arrested accused No.1 viz., Nishan Abdul Kahder on 30.11.2015 for contravention of the said provisions of the NDPS Act). During the course of investigation, summons were issued to accused Nos.2 and 3 viz., Suraj Palan and Karl D'Cunha. Based on their voluntary statement and documentary evidence, other accused persons were also arrested on 16.12.2015. Further as a part of the enquiry one packet of suspected chemical was found and as per the chemical analysis report, presence of 13 grams of MDMA was seized from the house of accused No.3. On secret information received on 19.5.2015, accused No.4 -Vijeth was arrested near Pragathi Travels Office, R.T. Nagar, Bengaluru and seized 2.26 gms of Hashis and new Sim Card from Saudi Arabia, a parcel which came from Mangaluru to Bengaluru and on enquiry it is stated that accused No.4-Vijeth's friend Shabbir had sent these drugs from Mangaluru 4 instructing him to hand it over to accused No.1 after his release from jail.
3. As per the voluntary statement of accused No.1 dated 31.11.2015, he disclosed involvement of other accused persons. Pursuant to the same, the present petitioner was issued with notice under Section 67 of the Act and the information was collected on different dates. On 21.6.2016, in her statement the petitioner herein had confessed that AXIS Bank account of accused No.4 was being operated by accused No.1 and she has further agreed that at the request of accused No.1 she had transferred some amount to the Bank account of accused No.4 from her bank account. She has also admitted in her voluntary statement that she had knowledge about the drug business carried out by accused No.1 and she also acknowledged that she consumes drug. It is the case of the prosecution that accused No.1 in his voluntary statement dated 5 31.11.2015 admitted that petitioner extended her support in the drug business. On the basis of the said complaint the aforesaid case was registered.
4. Heard the arguments of learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of Advocate for the petitioner and also learned Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent.
5. Learned Senior counsel submitted that name of the present petitioner was not figured at the initial stage and it is only subsequently that too on the basis of the voluntary statement given by the other accused persons, the present petitioner was taken into custody and it is alleged that her statement is also recorded by the Investigating Officer; that the other accused persons including accused No.1 from whom certain quantity of Cocaine was confiscated, has been granted bail by order of this Court dated 26.9.2016 in CRL.P.No.5161/16; 6 that other accused persons viz., accused Nos.2, 3 and even accused No.4 also were already released on bail by order of the said Court. Hence he submitted that the petitioner is innocent, she has not committed any offences and she is ready to abide by any conditions to be imposed by this Court and that on the ground of party also she is entitled to be granted bail.
6. Per contra, learned Special Public Prosecutor filed objections and during the course of arguments contended that looking to the materials collected during the investigation it goes to show that the present petitioner was operating the bank account of accused No.1 and that voluntary statement of the present petitioner is also recorded wherein it is admitted that she was operating the bank account of accused No.1 for conducting drug business; that certain quantity of Cocaine was also recovered from the house of the petitioner. Hence he submitted that the offences alleged 7 under the provisions of the NDPS Act are serious in nature and hence the petitioner is not entitled to be granted bail.
7. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and also the other materials produced along with the petition by the learned counsel for the petitioner so also the bail order passed by the Special Judge rejecting the bail application of the present petitioner. I have also perused the order of this Court dated 26.9.2016 passed in Crl.P.No.5161/16 in respect of Accused No.1 so also the order dated 2.6.2016 passed by the Special Court in respect of accused No.4 in Spl.C.C.No.231/16.
8. Perusing the materials placed on record, it is seen that the allegations made as against the present petitioner are similar to that of allegations made against accused No.1. The court has already taken into consideration the entire merits of the case and 8 ultimately granted bail to the accused No.1 and the Special Court has also granted bail to accused Nos.2 and 4 considering the merits of the matter.
9. It is contended that the petitioner herein that she has not at all committed any of the offences alleged and it is accused No.1 who was residing in the said house though the house was standing in the name of the petitioner. Hence she submits that she has not committed any of the offences alleged and that she has been falsely implicated in the case. The material also goes to show that at the first instance name of the petitioner was not figured in the FIR and only subsequently her name is included in the case. The alleged offences are also not exclusively punishable with death sentence or imprisonment of life and when similar set of allegations are made against accused Nos.1 and other accused persons whose case has been considered on merits and they have been granted bail, even on 9 parity also the present petitioner requires to be granted bail.
10. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The petitioner / accused No.5 is ordered to be released on bail in connection with the case in NCB.F.No.58/1/17/2015/BZU of the respondent - Intelligence Officer, Bengaluru Zonal Unit, subject to following conditions:
1) Petitioner shall execute personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with two solvent sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court;
2) Petitioner shall not tamper the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly;
3) Petitioner shall appear before the concerned Investigating Officer as and when called 10 for further investigation and shall co-operate in the further investigation and
4) Petitioner shall appear before the concerned court regularly.
Sd/-
JUDGE RS/* CT:SN