Karnataka High Court
Intelligence Officer vs Smt.Reddamma on 7 March, 2022
Author: V. Srishananda
Bench: V. Srishananda
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.1198 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
INTELLIGENCE OFFICER,
NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU,
BANGALORE ZONAL UNIT,
NO.7/1-2, PRIYANK VILLAS,
RAMANNA GARDEN,
BAGLUR MAIN ROAD,
KATTIGENAHALLI,
YELAHANKA,
BANGALORE - 560 063.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.B.S.VENKATA NARAYANA, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI.MADHUKAR M DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT.REDDAMMA,
W/O RAMESH,
AGE: MAJOR,
2. SRI.SHIVA,
S/O GANGALAPPA,
AGE: MAJOR,
3. SRI.VENKATARAMANA,
S/O LATE SRINIVAS,
AGE: MAJOR,
2
ALL THE ABOVE RESPONDENTS
ARE RESIDING AT BHAGATH SINGH
COLONY, PUNGANURU,
CHITTOR DISTRICT,
ANDHRA PRADESH - 517 247.
4. SRI.DASARI GANESH,
S/O DASARI PULLAIAH,
AGE: MAJOR,
RESIDING AT KANDUR VILLAGE,
NEAR BUS STOP, SOMALA TALUK,
CHITTOR DISTRICT,
ANDHRA PRADESH - 517 234.
... RESPONDENTS
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
439(2) OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
DATED 13.11.2020 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KOLAR IN SPL.C. (NDPS)
NO.3/2020 AND CANCEL THE BAIL GRANTED TO THE
RESPONDENT VIDE ORDER DATED 13.11.2020 BY THE
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KOLAR.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard Sri.B.S.Venkatanarayana on behalf of Sri.Madhukar M, Deshpande, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.B.V.Ananda, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4.
3
2. The present petition is filed under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C seeking cancellation of the bail.
3. Shorn of unnecessary facts, the petition can be disposed of on a short point is whether the final report filed on 22.05.2020 was ignored by the trial Court before admitting respondent Nos.1 to 4 on bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C is involved in the case.
4. The necessary facts are as under:
Respondent Nos.1 to 4 herein were arrested by the police ie., Narcotics Control Bureau on 26.11.2019. They were sent to judicial custody. In view of the prevailing Pandemic Covid-19 and following the standard operating procedure prescribed by the High Court, the petitioner sought permission of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kolar to file the final report through e-mail on 22.05.2020. Since, the learned Principal District Judge permitted the petitioner to file the charge sheet through e-mail, the same was filed on 4 22.05.2020. To establish that the necessary correspondence is made through e-mail, the physical form is also produced before the Court.
5. The same is not in dispute. However, without considering the final report filed on 22.05.2020 through e-mail, learned Special Judge who is also the Principal District and Sessions Judge passed an order on 13.11.2020 in Spl.C (NDPS) No.3/2020, granting bail to respondent Nos.1 to 4 by resorting the power under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C, though in the operative portion, it is considered as the bail petition is allowed under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
6. Admittedly, the application filed by the accused persons was under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C and not under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. The observation made by the learned Special Judge while admitting the respondent Nos.1 to 4 on bail in Paragraph 11 of the order dated 13.11.2020, however mentions that the 5 accused have got indefeasible right in view of the fact that the charge sheet is filed beyond 180 days.
7. Since, there was no application made by respondent Nos.1 to 4 (accused), under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C, mere mentioning by the learned District Judge that the charge sheet is filed beyond 180 days of arrest of the accused should be considered as only an arbitrary, rather than making it as a ground for admitting respondent Nos.1 to 4 for bail.
8. Further, it is submitted at the Bar that the case has now reached the stage of recording the accused statement as contemplated under Section 313 Cr.P.C and there is total co-operation by respondent Nos.1 to 4. Recording of the accused statement is especially be held on 10.03.2022.
9. Taking note of these aspects, this Court is of the considered opinion that no good grounds are made 6 out by the petitioners herein to cancel the bail under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. Accordingly, this Court pass the following;
ORDER
(i) Petition is rejected.
(ii) However, it is made clear that this order shall not be considered as a precedent.
(iii) It is also made clear that the observation made by the learned Special Judge in order dated 13.11.2020 passed in Spl.C (NDPS) No.03/2020, while granting bail to respondent Nos.1 to 4, shall not influence the learned Special Judge while passing the final order.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE GH