Bapugouda S/O Sahebagouda vs State Of Karnataka

M.G. Uma, J

The petitioner-accused is before this Court seeking grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in Crime No.17/2021-22/33IE/330205 of Shahapur Sub Division, Surapur Range, Yadgiri District, initially registered for the offences punishable under Sections 20, 20(a), 25, 8(b) and 8(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'the Act'), and after investigation, charge sheet is filed for the offences punishable under Sections 20, 20(a), 20(b)(ii)(B), 25, 8(b) and 8(c) of the Act, on the basis of the first information lodged by informant-Sri Kedarnath S.T.

Heard Sri S.S.Aspalli, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Gururaj V. Hasilkar, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State. Perused the materials on record.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has not committed any offences as alleged. He has been falsely implicated in the matter without any basis. He was apprehended on 26.10.2021 and since then he is in judicial custody. The investigation has been completed and the charge sheet is also filed. It is stated that the petitioner had grown three ganja plants in the land belonging to his wife. The so called ganja plants seized by the police is of small quantity. Detention of the petitioner in custody is not required for any other purpose except to ensure his presence before the Trial court. The petitioner is not having any criminal antecedents. He is the permanent resident of the address mentioned in the cause title to the petition and is ready and willing to abide by any of the conditions that would be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays to allow the petition.

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader opposing the petition submitted that serious allegations are made against the petitioner for having committed the offences. The land in question stands in the name of wife of the petitioner. He had grown chili crop and in between, he had grown three ganja plants weighing 3.5 Kgs., which was seized in the presence of the gazetted officer. Looking to the seriousness of the offences, the petitioner is not entitled for grant of bail. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the petition.

In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:

“Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.?”

My answer to the above point is in ‘Affirmative’ for the following:

REASONS

The allegations made against the petitioner is of serious nature. Even though the land in question stands in the name of wife of the petitioner and the chili crop was grown, it is specifically stated that the petitioner had grown ganja plants in the same land and three ganja plants in all weighing 3.5 Kgs., were seized. At this stage, it cannot be said that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the matter without any basis. There are prima facie material against the petitioner. The charge sheet is already filed making specific allegations. However, the contraband seized is of small quantity. It is not the case of prosecution that petitioner is required for further investigation or for any other purpose except to ensure his presence before the Trial court. Therefore, detention of the petitioner in custody would amount to infringement of his valuable right to life and liberty. Hence, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail subject to conditions, which will take care of the apprehension expressed by the learned High Court Government Pleader that the petitioner may abscond or may tamper or threaten the prosecution witnesses.

Accordingly, I answer the above point in the affirmative and proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

The petition is allowed.

The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.17/2021-22/33IE/330205 of Shahapur Sub Division, Surapur Range, Yadgiri District, on obtaining the bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court, subject to the following conditions:

a). The petitioner shall not commit similar offences.

b). The petitioner shall not threaten or tamper with the prosecution witnesses.

c). The petitioner shall appear before the Court as and when required.

In case, the petitioner violates any of the conditions as stated above, the prosecution will be at liberty to move the Trial Court seeking cancellation of bail.

On furnishing the sureties by the petitioner, the Trial Court is at liberty to direct the Investigating Officer to verify the correctness of the address and authenticity of the documents furnished by the petitioner and the sureties and a report may be called for in that regard, which is to be submitted by the Investigating Officer within 5 days. The Trial Court on satisfaction, may proceed to accept the sureties for the purpose of releasing the petitioner on bail.