Karnataka High Court
Mansoor Khan vs State By Tiptur on 9 February, 2018
Author: R.B Budihal
Bench: R.B Budihal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 09TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.713/2018
BETWEEN:
MANSOOR KHAN
AGE: 30 YEARS,
S/O SIDIQUE SAB
FRUIT MERCHANT
R/O NEAR MAVINA THOPU
RAILWAY STATION ROAD
TIPTUR, TUMKUR DIST-572106. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI: PATEL D. KARE GOWDA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE BY TIPTUR
TOWN POLICE,
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU-560001 ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI: CHETAN DESAI, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION FILED U/S.438 CR.P.C BY
THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO
ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS
ARREST IN CRIME NO.2/2018 OF TIPTUR TOWN POLICE
2
STATION, TUMAKURU DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S
8(C) AND 20(B) OF NARCOTIC DRUGS AND PSYCHOTROPIC
SUBSTANCES ACT.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.2 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking direction to the respondent-Police Station to release the petitioner/ accused No.2 on bail in the event of his arrest for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, ("NDPS Act" for short) registered in respondent - police station Crime No.2/2018.
2. The prosecution case as per the complaint averments is that the complainant received the information that two persons holding the ganza packets were standing in front of M.H. Hotel, Makhan lane, Tiptur town and they were selling the ganza to the public. He then secured the staff and went to the said place. Out of the two, one 3 Mansur after seeing the police, threw away one black plastic cover containing the ganza packets and he went away in an autorickshaw. Another person was apprehended and he disclosed his name as Maruthi s/o. late Hanumantharayappa and they told him that they got the information that he is having ganza packets and they want to conduct his personal search. On being asked whether it is to be conducted before a Gazetted Officer or police themselves can do it, the said person told that it is to be done in the presence of the Gazetted Officer. Accordingly, with the help of the staff, he was produced before the Taluka Executive Magistrate in whose presence, the personal search of another accused person Maruthi was conducted. He was having 13 gms. of ganza worth Rs.1,100/-. The same was seized. Another cover containing five ganza packets weighing 50 gms. of ganza which was thrown by Mansur was also seized under the seizure mahazar. Sample was taken from each of the packet for the purpose of sending it to the Forensic Science Laboratory. Then, after coming to the Police Station, complaint was lodged and a case came to be registered 4 against the petitioner and another accused for the said offences.
3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused No.2 and also the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner made a submission that false allegations are made against the petitioner/accused No.2. He was not involved in committing the said offence. He is suffering from paralysis of both lower limbs and he cannot run. Hence, he made a submission that by imposing reasonable conditions, the petitioner may be admitted to anticipatory bail.
5. Learned High Court Government Pleader opposed the bail petition contending that there is prima facie material against the petitioner/accused No.2. 5
6. I have perused the grounds urged in the petition, FIR, complaint and other materials placed on record.
7. On perusing the complaint averments and the other prosecution material, there is no specific averment in the complaint lodged by the complainant that immediately after receiving the credible information, he has entered the said information in the station house diary and complied with the mandatory requirements under Sections 42(1) of the NDPS Act. Therefore, there is no fulfillment of mandatory requirements of section 42(1) of the NDPS Act. Non-compliance of the mandatory requirement is a relevant factor which is to be taken into consideration by the Courts even while considering the bail petition is a proposition of law as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Apart from that, though it is contended in the complaint that the present petitioner is also involved in the offence and after seeing the police, he ran away, but during the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that 6 the petitioner is not in a position to run as he is suffering from paralysis of both lower limbs and false allegations are made against him. The petitioner has undertaken to abide by any conditions to be imposed by this Court.
8. Hence, I am of the opinion that by imposing reasonable conditions, petitioner can be granted with anticipatory bail.
9. Accordingly, petition is allowed. The respondent-Police is directed to enlarge the present petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 8(c) and 20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, registered in the respondent police station Crime No.2/2018, subject to the following conditions:
i. Petitioner has to execute a personal bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) and has to furnish one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the arresting authority.7
ii. Petitioner shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or indirectly.
iii. Petitioner has to make himself available before the Investigating Officer for interrogation, as and when called for and to co-operate with further investigation. iv. The petitioner has to appear before the concerned Court within 30 days from the date of this order and to execute the personal bond and the surety bond.
Sd/-
JUDGE Bss