Mohith @ Manju @ Dabar vs State Of Karnataka on 1 July, 2019

[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Mohith @ Manju @ Dabar vs State Of Karnataka on 1 July, 2019

Bench: S. Sunil Dutt Yadav

                              1


 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF JULY 2019

                          BEFORE

  THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV

           CRIMINAL PETITION No.371/2019
Between:
Mohith @ Manju @ Dabar,
S/o Suresh,
Aged about 24 years,
R/at No.18, 5th Main Road,
Next Road of Mourya School,
Maruthinagara,
Kamakshipalya,
Bengaluru - 560 079.                            ... Petitioner

(By Sri R.B. Sadashivappa, Advocate for
    Sri Harish Kumar R.S., Advocate for
    M/s. Harish & Prasad Associates)

And:

State of Karnataka,
By Kamakshipalya P.S.,
Karnataka - 560 010,
Rep. by Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Karnataka,
Bangalore - 560 001.                          ... Respondent

(By Sri S. Rachaiah, HCGP)

      This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of the
Cr.P.C., praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Cr.
No.440/2018 of Kamakshipalya Police Station, Bengaluru
City for the offences p/u/s 20, 20(b) and 20(c) of N.D.P.S.
Act, 1985.
                              2


      This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders this day,
the Court, made the following:

                         ORDER

The petitioner-accused No.2 is seeking to be enlarged on bail in connection with his detention pursuant to the proceedings in Crime No.440/2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 20, 20(b), 22(c) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act).

2. The case of the prosecution is that the complaint is filed by the Inspector, CCB on 01.09.2018 for the offences as referred to above. It is stated that the accused No.1 and the petitioner-accused No.2 had stored gaanja by name Hydro, LSD blotting papers, MDMA pills of different colours and other drug by Hashish in their house. It is stated that there has been seizure of the above substances and have arrested accused No.1, who is the father of the petitioner and accused No.3, who is stated to be an accomplice. 3 Subsequent to the lodging of complaint and registering of FIR, investigation is completed and charge sheet has been filed. The complaint makes out a case that accused No.1 and his son accused No.2 were procuring banned substances from abroad and distributing the same in colleges amongst students.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that recovery was made while arresting accused No.1, who is father of accused No.2. It is contended that looking into the nature of allegations that is made as regards accused Nos.1 and 2 as would come out from the complaint, the accused No.1 is enlarged on bail as per the order passed in Crl.P.No.197/2019 dated 13.03.2019. Hence, the petitioner also pleads for extending benefit on the principle of parity. It is further stated that accused No.3 Abdul Rahim, has been enlarged on anticipatory bail as per the order dated 20.02.2019 passed in Crl.P.No.8570/2018. He 4 therefore submits that the petitioner-accused No.2 may also be entitled to be released on bail on the ground of parity.

4. It is to be noted that the nature of allegations against accused Nos.1 and 2 are similar as it would come out from the complaint. If accused No.1 has been granted bail, on the principle of parity, the other accused, who is similarly placed is also entitled for the same benefit.

5. Taking note of the fact that accused No.1, who is said to be an accomplice and part of the network in committing such offences is also enlarged on bail, the petitioner-accused No.2 is also entitled to be enlarged on bail on the principle of parity. Further, the observations made by this Court in Crl.P.No.8570/2018 and Crl.P.No.197/2019 are kept in mind. 5

6. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and petitioner-accused No.2 is ordered to be released on bail in Crime No.440/2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 20(b), 22(C) and 20 of the NDPS Act, subject to following conditions:-

(i) Petitioner-accused No.2 shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees Two Lakhs Only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

(ii) He shall not tamper with the evidence directly or indirectly.

(iii) He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without prior permission.

(iv) He shall mark his attendance on the first date of every month between 10:00 a.m to 5:00 p.m before the jurisdictional police till the trial is concluded.

(v) He shall not indulge in similar type of criminal activities.

(vi) Any violation of the aforementioned conditions by the petitioner, shall result in cancellation of bail.

Any observation made herein shall not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

Sd/-

JUDGE VGR

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court