Amartiya Rishi vs State Of Karnataka

Krishna S.Dixit, J

Petitioner being accused No.1 in Crime NO.355/2019 registered by the Kengeri Police for offences punishable u/ss 8(c), 21(c), 20(a)(b) of the

NDPS Act having suffered rejection of his bail petition in Crl. Misc. No.2288/2020 vide order dated 16.03.2020 made by the Spl. Judge (NDPS)

Bengaluru has presented this petition under Section439 of Cr.P.C., 1973 seeking his enlargement on bail.

After service of notice, the respondent â€" State having entered appearance through the learned HCGP Shri Mahesh Shetty opposes the petition

contending that, the offences are heinous in nature and that if the petitioner is liberated on bail, it would be difficult to secure his presence for the

purpose of trial of the case. He also submits that ordinarily, in offences punishable under the provisions of NDPS Act, the Courts do not readily grant

bail, regard being had to the social implications.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court is of a considered opinion that petitioner needs to

be enlarged on bail because:

a) there is force in the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the police papers do not mention specifically about the quantity of the article

seized as required in terms of Notification No. SO1055 (E) dated 19.10.2001; at Sl. No.133 of the said Notification, the NDPS article needs to be

above 0.1gram and that 22,500 microgram obliviously being less than the minimum commercial quantity, Section 37 of the NDPS Act is not invokable;

b) there is also force in the contention of the petitioner that he having suffered detention of more than 90 days, there being no scientific analysis of the

seized NDPS article in terms of quality & quantity, his continued detention is unwarranted and therefore, the non-filing of charge sheet within 60 days

as prescribed under Section 167(2) of CR.P.C. would enure to the benefit of the accused;

c) the above apart, the contention of the petitioner that he is a student of Bachelor of Management Studies and that the detention would come in the

way of his prosecuting the Course by putting him minimum required attendance and by writing the imminent examinations, cannot be much disputed;

d) the contention of the learned Prosecutor that the petitioner if liberated from the confines, his presence cannot be secured for the purpose of further

investigation, or for the trial can be taken care off by prescribing stringent conditions; after all, bail is a rule and jail is an exception, of course subject to

all just exceptions and that nothing is demonstrated to exclude applicability of this oft quoted norm.

In the above circumstances, this petition having been favoured, petitioner shall be enlarged on bail subject to conditions stipulated hereunder:

i) The petitioner shall execute his personal bond for a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Two Lakh Rupees) only with two sureties for the like-sum each, within

four weeks after he is released from the custody to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court.

ii) The petitioner shall mark his attendance once in a fortnight in the jurisdictional Police Station and that shall fully cooperate with the

investigation/further investigation; petitioner shall not intimidate or influence any prosecution witness not shall he do any act that would mar the

prosecution case.

iii) The petitioner shall participate in the proceedings of the Court below on every date of hearing and shall not remain absent save with the prior leave

of the learned judge of the said Court; petitioner shall not leave the jurisdictional limits of the said Court.

The learned Registrar (Judicial) is requested to transmit this order to the jurisdictional Court/Authority by e-mail or otherwise, as early as possible for

information and needful implementation.