IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A.PATIL CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8689/2017 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 K.N. Mohan, Special Public Prosecutor) AND :
Raza Mohammad Mohammad Mustafa S/o Mohammad Mustafa Aged about 40 years R/at Old No.116/4A, New No.178, Dr. Besant Road, Royapettah, Chennai-600 014.
… Respondent (By Sri K.S. Vishwanath, Advocate) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C praying to cancel the bail vide order dated 16.06.2017 in Crl.Misc.No.4558/2017 NCB Crime No.05/2017/BZU passed by the XXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Spl. Judge, (NDPS), Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 9(A), 28 and 29 of NDPS Act.
This Criminal Petition coming on for orders this day, the Court made the following:-
O R D E R This petition is field by the Narcotics Control Bureau under Section 439 (2) of Cr.P.C. praying to cancel the bail granted by XXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for NDPS Act, Bengaluru in NCB Crime No.5/2017, dated 16.6.2017.
2. The gist of the case is that on 28.3.2017 on receipt of credible information, a person by name Raza Mohammed Mohammad Mustafa who is travelling with flight No.MH193 on 29.3.2019 is carrying huge quantity of ephedrine in his luggage. Immediately, he rushed to the said place and with the permission of the superintendent formed a team. Thereafter, the search was conducted and when the search was conducted in respect of the said person, it was found that in a transparent plastic sheet, he was carrying the control substance and the same was seized and the case has been registered. Thereafter the accused moved the trial Court. The trial Court vide its order dated 16.6.2017 released him on bail.
3. It is the submission of the learned Special PP for the petitioner that the trial Court without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case and objections filed by the prosecution, has granted the bail. He further submitted that by over looking the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court, the trial Court has released the petitioner on bail. He further submitted that the provisions of Section 9A of the NDPS Act have also not been properly appreciated by the trial Court. He further submitted that without considering the voluntary statement of the accused, though he has admitted that he has been involved in the offence punishable under the provisions of the NDPS Act he has been released on bail. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the petition and to cancel the bail granted in favour of the respondent herein.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent-accused vehemently argued and contended that the respondent has not violated any bail conditions and he is regularly attending the Court. Now the case has been fixed for trial and some of the witnesses have been examined. At this juncture, if the respondent- accused is taken to custody, he will be put to greater hardship. Hence, he submits that the petitioner has not made out any case to cancel the bail.
5. I have heard the learned Special PP and the learned counsel for the respondent and perused the records.
6. Though several grounds have been urged in the petition, the said grounds do not substantiate the contention of the learned Special PP for the petitioner. In so far as voluntary statement made by the accused is concerned, though he has admitted that in the voluntary statement, the said admission of the accused is in violation of Article 22 of the Constitution of India. It cannot be made use of as against the petitioner so as to prove the guilt of the accused. It is submitted during the course of arguments that the accused is regularly attending the Court and trial has taken place, so also some of the witnesses have already been examined. When the accused is regularly attending the Court and he has not violated any bail conditions, then under such circumstances, only to ensure the presence of the accused, if he is directed that he should be present at the time of trial and he should furnish his permanent address, it would meet the ends of justice.
In the light of the discussion held by me above, respondent-accused is directed to furnish the correct his permanent address and he shall regularly attend the trial till the trial is concluded.
With the aforesaid observations, petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE *ck/-