Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Karnataka
  4. /
  5. 2017
  6. /
  7. January

Loy Veigas vs The State By

High Court Of Karnataka|06 December, 2017
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8831/2017 BETWEEN:
Loy Veigas Aged about 24 years S/o Lio Veigas R/at Jasmin Villa Mandhara Bail Konchadi Derebail Mangaluru-575 006. ... PETITIONER (By Sri P Karunakar, Adv.) AND:
The State by Mangaluru East Police Represented by the Learned Public Prosecutor High Court of Karnataka Bangalore-560 001. ...RESPONDENT (By Sri Chetan Desai, HCGP) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Cr.No.247/2017 of Mangalore East P.S., Mangaluru City, for the offence P/U/S 8(C) and Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
This Criminal Petition coming on for orders this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.1 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c) and 20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 registered in respondent – police station Crime No.247/2017.
2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused No.1 and also the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
3. Brief facts of the prosecution case as per the complaint averments are, the complainant received credible information that three persons with their vehicle are standing near Bunts Hostel, Mangaluru and selling ganja to the public. Immediately, the complainant along with his staff and panch witnesses went to the spot. They apprehended all the three persons and from accused No.1 they have seized 1 kg.
200 gms. of ganja under mahazar drawn at the spot.
Thereafter, the complainant along with the seized material and the accused person came to the police station and lodged the complaint.
4. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and other materials placed on record, so also, the order of this Court dated 21.9.2017 passed in Crl.P.No.7317/2017 granting bail to accused No.2.
5. As per the complaint averments, the complainant has received the credible information. But, in the complaint it is not mentioned that the complainant after receipt of the said information, reduced the same into writing in the station house diary in compliance of Section 42(1) of the NDPS Act. The mandate of Section 42(1) is not followed in this case by the complainant. The contents of the complaint also shows that there was a personal search of the petitioner and other accused persons. When that is so, Section 50 of the NDPS Act is also applicable and the complainant ought to have explained to the petitioner-accused No.1 before conducting personal search that petitioner is having the legal right to exercise his option as to whether he intends the search to be conducted in the presence of gazetted officer or in the presence of Magistrate.
6. The quantity of ganja seized is 1 kg. 200 gms. which is less than the commercial quantity. Accused No.2 has been already admitted to bail. The petitioner has contended in the petition that there is a false implication and he has undertaken to abide by any reasonable conditions to be imposed by this Court. The alleged offences are not exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Hence, I am of the opinion that petitioner can be granted with bail.
7. Accordingly, petition is allowed.
Petitioner/accused No.1 is ordered to be released on bail for the offence punishable under Sections Sections 8(c) and 20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 registered in respondent – police station Crime No.247/2017, subject to the following conditions:
i. Petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- and furnish one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court.
ii. Petitioner shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or indirectly.
iii. Petitioner shall appear before the concerned Court regularly.
Sd/- JUDGE bkp
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

Loy Veigas vs The State By

Court

High Court Of Karnataka

JudgmentDate
06 December, 2017
Judges
  • Budihal R B Criminal