Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Karnataka
  4. /
  5. 2019
  6. /
  7. January

Mr Abdul Rahim A vs State By Kamakshipalya Police Station

High Court Of Karnataka|20 February, 2019
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A.PATIL CRIMINAL PETITION No.8570/2018 BETWEEN:
Mr. Abdul Rahim A S/o Ashraf K.K. Aged about 24 years R/at No.21, Kaveri Nagar Karnataka Layout, Kurubarahalli, Bangalore-560 079.
(By Sri Jayaprakash Shetty B., Advocate) AND:
…Petitioner State by Kamakshipalya Police Station Bangalore City Represented by its State Public Prosecutor High Court of Karnataka Bangalore-560 001.
… Respondent (By Sri K.P. Yoganna, HCGP) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.440/2018 of Kamakshipalya Police Station, Bangalore City, for the offences punishable under Sections 20, 20(b), 22(c) of Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Ac, 1985.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders, this day the Court made the following:-
O R D E R The present petition has been filed by the petitioner/ accused No.3 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. to release him on anticipatory bail in Crime No.440/2018 of Kamakshipalya police station for the offences punishable under Sections 20, 20(b) and 22(c) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as ‘NDPS’ Act for short).
2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
3. The gist of the complaint is that on the basis of the information from the informant on 1.9.2018 at about 1.00 p.m. they went to the house of accused Nos.1 and 2 at Kamakshipalya and when they made a search in accordance with law, they found LSD blotting paper, MDMA pills and they also came to know that they have been stored with an intention to sell the same to the students in Bengaluru City. Based on the said facts and on the basis of the voluntary statement they came to know that in the alleged crime one Mohit accused No.2 and Abdul Rahim the present petitioner are involved and they are absconding and on search of accused No.1, they found 180 grams of superior quality of ganja called Hydro, 3 grams of 169 LSD blotting papers, 66 grams of 168 MDMA pills, 210 grams of Hashish and one cell phone and the same was seized by drawing a mahazar.
4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that on perusal of the entire complaint it does not disclose any kind of offence for having committed by the petitioner/accused No.3. It is the statement of accused No.1 that they used to purchase the same from the petitioner/accused and no articles have been seized from the possession of the petitioner/accused. Only on the basis of the voluntary statement of accused No.1 it cannot be inferred that petitioner has involved in the alleged crime.
He further submitted that item No.2 is also not included in the contraband goods. Under the similar facts and circumstances already this Court has released the petitioner/accused on bail. He further submitted that no connecting link have been produced by the prosecution to connect the petitioner/accused in the alleged crime. He is ready to abide by the conditions imposed by this Court and ready to offer the sureties. On these grounds he prayed to allow the petition and to release the petitioner on anticipatory bail.
5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently argued and submitted that huge quantity of ganja in the form of Hydro has been seized and apart from that, 3 grams of 169 LSD blotting paper, 66 grams of 168 MDMA pills, 210 grams of Hashish have been seized from the possession of the accused No.1 and he has volunteered that petitioner/accused is also used to supply the said material and he is also involved in the alleged crime. He further submitted that he is also a habitual offender and he is also the accused in another case. He further submitted that if the petitioner/accused is ordered to be released on anticipatory bail, again he may indulge in similar type of criminal activities. On these grounds he prayed to dismiss the petition.
6. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the contents of the complaint and the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records.
7. On close reading of the contents of the complaint and other material, only on the basis of the voluntary statement said to have been given by accused Nos.1 and 2, the name of the petitioner accused has been included in the complaint. Even no articles have been seized from the possession of the petitioner/accused. The only allegation which has been made as against this petitioner is that he is also involved in the said crime and he used to deal with the other accused. The same to be considered and appreciated only at the time of trial. Under the said facts and circumstances, I feel that by imposing some stringent conditions, if the petitioner/accused is ordered to be released on bail, it is going to meet the ends of justice.
8. In the light of the discussions held by me above, the petition is allowed and petitioner/accused No.3 is ordered to be released on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.440/2018 of Kamakshipalya Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 20, 20(b), 22(C) of NDPS Act, subject to the following conditions:
i) The petitioner 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 Investigating Officer.
ii) He shall surrender before the Investigating Officer within 15 days from today.
iii) He shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence directly or indirectly.
iv) He shall mark his attendance before the jurisdictional police once in 15 days between 10.00 A.M. and 5.00 P.M. till the trial is concluded.
v) He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without prior permission of the Court.
vi) He shall not involve in such type of criminal activities during the trial.
vii) If he again involves in such type of criminal activities, the Court below is at liberty to cancel the bail.
Sd/- JUDGE *AP/-
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Mr Abdul Rahim A vs State By Kamakshipalya Police Station

Court

High Court Of Karnataka

JudgmentDate
20 February, 2019
Judges
  • B A Patil