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

Rameez Raaz vs State Of Karnataka

High Court Of Karnataka|30 October, 2017
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION No.7943/2017 BETWEEN:
Rameez Raaz S/o Hussain Aged about 24 years R/at No.2/392 Thoudugoli Cross Naringana Village Bantwal Taluk D.K. District-574 222. .. PETITIONER (By Sri B Lethif, Adv.) AND:
State of Karnataka By Mangaluru North Police Station D.K. District Represented by the State Public Prosecutor High Court Building Bangalore-560 001. .. RESPONDENT (By Sri Chetan Desai, HCGP) This criminal petition is filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Cr.No.202/2017 of Mangalore North P.S., Mangalore City for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.
This 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 of the offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 20(B)(ii)(b) of NDPS Act, 1985 registered in respondent Police Station Crime No.202/2017.
2. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner-accused No.1 and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
3. The case of prosecution is that the complainant received a credible information on 3.7.2017 at about 1.00 p.m. alleging that near the Medicare Centre, in a lodge, by name Gurudev at Room No.337, three unknown persons were trafficking ganja and complainant had informed the same to his higher officer Sunil Y Naik. As per his direction, they conducted raid on the said place along with his staff and knocked the doors of lodge and found three persons inside the room and interrogated three of them and revealed the name as Rameez Raza, Mohammed Haneef and Iqbal Haris and disclosed that they brought alleged ganja from Andhra Pradesh through one Saleem Basha and selling the same to the customers. On the basis of the said complaint, the case was registered by the respondent police.
4. Perusing the materials on record, though ganja was alleged to have been seized on 3.7.2017, there is delay of nearly two months in sending the ganja to FSL for examination and report. The total ganja alleged to have been seized from the said persons together is 10 kgs. As per the prosecution version, it is lesser than the commercial quantity. The petitioner contends that he has been falsely implicated in the case and he has not at all committed the alleged offence. He has undertaken that he is ready to abide by any condition that may be imposed by this Court. Charge sheet has been filed before the concerned court, but, however FSL report is still awaited. Because of that reason, the concerned Sessions Court has not taken cognizance of the case. When there is an allegation of trafficking ganja, report of opinion of an expert is the must. Apart from that, learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the standing instructions issued for the purpose of seeking seizure material for examination, which is to be done within 15 days, the same has not been followed in the present case. Apart from that, on this aspect, this Court had an occasion to consider the case of bail applications of accused Nos.2 and 3. Their bail applications came to be allowed by this Court. The petitioner is also standing on the same footing. The alleged offences are not exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment for life.
5. Therefore, the petition is allowed. Petitioner- accused No.1 is ordered to be released on bail for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 20(B)(ii)(b) of NDPS Act, 1985 registered in respondent Police Station Crime No.202/2017, subject to the following conditions:
i. Petitioner shall execute a personal bond for the sum of Rs.50,000/- and furnish one solvent 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.
Cs/-
Sd/- JUDGE
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

Rameez Raaz vs State Of Karnataka

Court

High Court Of Karnataka

JudgmentDate
30 October, 2017
Judges
  • Budihal R B