Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri Prakash vs State Of Karnataka on 5 August, 2015

Author: L.Narayana Swamy

Bench: L.Narayana Swamy

                            1




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 05th DAY OF AUGUST, 2015

                      BEFORE

    THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE L.NARAYANA SWAMY

           CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4855/2015

BETWEEN:

SRI. PRAKASH
S/O. LAKSHMANRAJU,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
RESIDING AT
NO.3799, 6TH CROSS,
GAYATHRI NAGAR,
BENGALURU-560021.
                                  ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.NAGENDRA C.S. ADV., )

AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY VYALIKAVAL P.S.
BENGALURU-560003.
                                  ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. NASRULLA KHAN, HCGP)

      THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 439 OF Cr.P.C., PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE
PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.89/2015 OF VYALIKAVAL
P.S., BANGALORE FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTIONS 21, 28, 25(A) OF N.D.P.S. ACT R/W
                                   2




SECTIONS 3, 4 AND 5 OF N.D.P.S. (REGULATION OF
CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE) ORDER 1993.

     THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                          ORDER

This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.7 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. praying for grant of bail in Cr.No.89/2015 of Vyalikaval P.S., Bangalore for the offences punishable under Sections 21, 28, 25(A) of N.D.P.S. Act r/w 3, 4 and 5 of N.D.P.S. (Regulation of Controlled Substance) Order, 1993.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on a complaint of one Mr.Chandrashekar, the respondent-police have registered a crime and the complainant stated in his complaint that on 15.05.2015, when he was in his office in C.C.B at 8.45 a.m. he received a credible information from the informant that in front of Prashant Hotel, at Sheshadripuram (Lingaiah Road), 1st main road, two persons are trying to sell Narcotic Drugs. Therefore, he along with Panch witnesses and staff members went to the 3 said place and found accused Nos.1 and 2 selling Amphetamine. They apprehended accused Nos.1 and 2 who were possessing 1 Kg Amphetamine without permission and licence. On the basis of their statements, this petitioner is also arrested and produced before the learned Magistrate and he was remanded to judicial custody.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the recoveries are effected from accused Nos.1 and 2 and no recovery is made from this petitioner. But the police have named the petitioner herein as accused No.7. Aggrieved by this act of the police, the petitioner preferred a bail application before the Sessions Court in Crl.Misc.Pet.No.3073/2015, which was rejected by the XXXIII Addl.City Civil and Sessions Judge and Spl.Judge (NDPS), Bengaluru on 06.06.2015. Hence, he is before this Court. He further submits that this Court has granted bail to accused Nos.4 and 8 in Crl.P. No.3784/2015 4 disposed of on 13.07.2015. Therefore, this petitioner is also entitled for bail on the ground of parity. Hence, he prayed for grant of bail to this petitioner also.

4. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader has vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that the petitioner is making business of amphetamine in Bengaluru and if the petitioner is released on bail, he may abscond, tamper with the prosecution witnesses and flee away from justice. Hence, sought for dismissal of this petition.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

6. On perusal of the records and on the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is seen that the recoveries are effected from accused Nos.1 and 2 and no recovery is made from this petitioner and since accused Nos.4 and 8 have already been granted 5 bail in Crl.P.No.3784/2015 disposed of on 13.07.2015, this petitioner is also entitled for bail on the ground of parity.

7. Taking note of all these facts and circumstances and also by considering the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the petitioner can be released on bail by imposing certain conditions. Accordingly the following:

ORDER i. Petition is allowed.
ii. Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on executing a personal bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.

   iii.        Petitioner shall attend the court on all dates of
               hearing,      except         under   unavoidable
               circumstances.
                                        6



     iv.        Petitioner shall not hold any threats to the
prosecution witnesses or lure them in any manner.
If he violates any of the above conditions, prosecution is at liberty to seek cancellation of bail.
Sd/-
JUDGE BS