Karnataka High Court
Sri.Aatif S/O Nazeerahamad Chachadi vs The State Of Karnataka on 21 August, 2019
Author: K.Somashekar
Bench: K. Somashekar
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF AUGUST 2019
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. SOMASHEKAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.101474/2019
BETWEEN
SRI.AATIF S/O NAZEERAHAMAD CHACHADI
AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: MECHANIC,
R/O: PLOT NO.1, BEL-ENCLAVE APARTMENT,
MAHANTESH NAGAR, BELAGAVI,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SANTOSH B. MALAGOUDAR, ADV.)
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH P S I MALAMARUTHI POLICE STATION,
REP. BY ADDL.STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
SPP OFFICE, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.RAJA RAGHAVENDRA NAIK, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439
OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO ALLOW THE PRESENT CRIMINAL
PETITION AND ENLARGE THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.3 ON
BAIL IN MALMARUTHI P.S. CRIME NO.86/2019 FOR THE
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 20(b) OF NDPS ACT,
1985, INSOFAR AS PRESENT PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.3 IS
CONCERNED.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
:2:
ORDER
This is a petition filed by the petitioner - accused No.3 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in Malamaruthi P.S. Crime No.86/2019 for the offence punishable under Section 20(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The accused is in judicial custody since from the date of his arrest. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner is praying for enlargement of the petitioner on regular bail among the grounds urged therein.
2. It is stated in the complaint that the complainant - the Police Inspector of Malmaruthi P.S. received credible information on 16.07.2019 at about 19:40 hours that one person by name Akhilahamad Kutubuddin Munavalli - accused No.1, the resident of Amaan Nagar Belagavi was possessing ganja in a plastic bag for selling the same he had come near Kunda Hotel at Azadnagar. The Police Inspector had intimated the same information to his higher officials. Thereafter, the complainant formed a team by securing panchas and went to the scene of crime, where at 21:15 hours, they saw a :3: person holding a plastic bag coming near the spot and the said person was waiting for some other persons and after few minutes, the raiding team saw two persons coming on the motorcycle and those two persons collected two separate plastic bags and in return they paid him money and thus seeing these persons, the raiding team caught them on the spot, where the present petitioner was also apprehended, as he was the pillion rider. Thereafter, in the presence of panchas, 220 gms. of ganja worth of Rs.2,200/- and one POCO mobile handset was seized from the custody of the petitioner - accused No.3.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was a pillion rider and there are no direct overt acts attributed against the petitioner in committing the alleged offences and it is found that 220 gms. of ganja worth of Rs.2,200/- was in the possession of the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and he is the only earning member in the family, if the said petitioner is supposed to be kept behind the bar for a longer period, then the family members of the petitioner would loose their bread winner :4: to eke out their life. Lastly the counsel submitted that the petitioner - accused No.3 is ready to abide any terms imposed by this Court while granting bail to him. These are all the contentions taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner and seeking for regular bail to him.
4. Per contra, learned HCGP for the Sate has taken me through the report of the complaint made by the Police Inspector by drawing the mahazar said to have seized 220 gms. of ganja worth of Rs.2,200/- found in a plastic bag in the possession of the petitioner - accused No.3. It is submitted that this petitioner was a pillion rider and there was a role of this petitioner in carrying the ganja in a plastic bag for the purpose of selling and gaining money with others. It is further submitted by the learned HCGP that mere because of only the quantity of 220 gms. of ganja has been seized from the petitioner - accused No.3, it cannot be a ground to seek regular bail, as it is a menace to the society. These are all the contentions taken by the learned HCGP and sought for dismissal of the bail petition.
:5:
5. In this back drop of the strenuous contentions taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner and so also counter made by the learned HCGP for the State, it is relevant to state that Section 20(B) of NDPS Act, 1985 reveals in two parts; but in the schedule small quantity it is up to 1000 gms. Whereas, the greater quantity as per the schedule, it is up to 20 kgs. However, in the instant case, it indicates 220 gms. of ganja has been seized by the Investigating Officer by drawing the mahazar in the presence of pachas which was said to have been in the plastic bag in the possession of the petitioner - accused No.3, who was a pillion rider and the said motorcycle was belonging to accused No.2. However, mere because the petitioner found with the possession of ganja weighing 220 gms. in a plastic bag, it cannot be said that there are enough materials in committing the alleged offences. Therefore, at this stage, it is said that it does not require any detailed discussion while considering the bail petition filed by the petitioner, as there are substances in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner seeking for the relief of bail.
:6:
6. Whereas, the learned HCGP submits that if the petitioner is supposed to be released on bail, certainly he would come in the way of prosecution case and would destroy the evidence. As this apprehension expressed by the learned HCGP, could be curtailed by imposing certain suitable conditions to safeguard the interest of the prosecution. Therefore, for the aforesaid reasons as well as under the circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner deserves for bail. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The petition filed by the petitioner under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. is allowed, subject to the following conditions:
(i) The petitioner shall execute a bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with like sum surety to the satisfaction of the Court of the II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Belagavit City in Crime No.86/2019 of Malmaruthi P.S.
(ii) The petitioner shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation.
:7:
(iii) The petitioner shall not tamper or
hamper the case of prosecution
witnesses.
(iv) The petitioner shall appear before the
concerned Court on all the dates of
hearing without fail.
(v) The petitioner shall mark his attendance
once in fortnight as per the English
monthly calendar in between 10:00 a.m. and 05:00 p.m. before the concerned SHO for a period of three months.
(vi) The petitioner shall not indulge with any other criminal activities henceforth.
(vii) If the petitioner violates any of the above conditions, the bail order shall automatically stands ceased.
Sd/-
JUDGE Rsh