Darshan K.G vs State Of Karnataka

S Vishwajith Shett, J

Accused no.2 in Crime No.234/2024 registered by Bajpe Police Station, Mangaluru City, for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 22(b) of NDPS Act, 1985, is before this Court under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023, seeking regular bail.

Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

FIR in Crime No.234/2024 was registered by Bajpe Police Station, Mangaluru City, for the aforesaid offences initially against Mohammed Iqbal and Nowshad based on the first information dated 28.11.2024 received from Revanasiddappa - Police Officer attached to Bajpe Police Station, Mangaluru City. During the course of investigation, petitioner herein was arrested on 03.12.2024 and subsequently remanded to judicial custody. After completing the investigation, charge sheet has been filed and petitioner herein is arrayed as accused no.2 in the charge sheet. His bail application filed before the Trial Court in Crime No.234/2024 was rejected on 27.01.2025. Therefore, petitioner is before this Court.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner's name is not found in the FIR and for extraneous reasons, he has been arrested in the present case even before any seizure of contraband article was made from him. Investigation of the case is completed. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition.

Per contra, learned HCGP has opposed the petition.

First information was submitted by the Police Officer attached to Bajpe Police Station, and in the FIR which was registered, the name of the petitioner is not found. Accused no.1 named in the FIR was arrested on 28.11.2024 and it appears that he had made a confession that he was purchasing contraband article from accused no.2 - Nowshad. It is alleged that subsequently during the course of investigation, police came to know that petitioner was the person who was supplying contraband article to Nowshad and it is under these circumstances on 03.12.2024, the car bearing registration No.KA-05-MV-9575 in which the petitioner was travelling was intercepted. The material on record would go to show that petitioner was arrested at 5.00 p.m. on 03.12.2024 and his mother Smt. Shantha was also informed about the arrest of the petitioner.

Perusal of the recovery mahazar dated 03.12.2024 under which the contraband article allegedly MDMA was recovered from the petitioner would go to show that recovery proceedings was recorded from 5.35 p.m. and closed at 6.30 p.m. According to the prosecution, the contraband article allegedly MDMA totally weighing 59.22 grams was recovered from the dashboard of the petitioner's car and along with the contraband article, his mobile phone and other belongings were also recovered under the aforesaid mahazar prepared between 5.35 p.m. and 6.30 p.m. Further, the material on record would go to show that even prior to recovery of contraband article from the petitioner, he was arrested in the present case.

Undisputedly, the seizure of contraband article allegedly MDMA was from the dashboard of petitioner's car in which he was travelling. Though in the recovery mahazar it is stated that the police had recorded reasons to believe for non-compliance of Section 41 of the NDPS Act, such reasons to believe is not available on record and though the learned HCGP was given an opportunity to place the same on record, she has failed to place the same on record. Therefore, prima facie, it appears that there is no compliance of Section 41 or the proviso to Section 42 of the NDPS Act in the present case.

Undisputedly, petitioner has no criminal antecedents. Though the seized contraband article from the petitioner is of commercial quantity, considering the fact that his arrest was prior to the seizure of contraband article made from the petitioner and also since there is no compliance of Section 41 or the proviso to Section 42 of the NDPS Act, the rigor under Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act cannot be strictly made applicable against the petitioner who has no criminal antecedents. Petitioner, aged about 26 years is said to be a reporter in a private TV channel. Investigation is already completed and charge sheet has been filed. Considering the aforesaid aspects of the matter, I am of the opinion that his prayer for grant of regular bail is required to be answered affirmatively. Accordingly, the following order:

The petition is allowed. The petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.234/2024 registered by Bajpe Police Station, Mangaluru City, for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 22(b) of NDPS Act, 1985, subject to the following conditions:

a) Petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties for the likesum, to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court;

b) The petitioner shall appear regularly on all the dates of hearing before the Trial Court unless the Trial Court exempts his appearance for valid reasons;

c) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly threaten or tamper with the prosecution witnesses;

d) The petitioner shall not involve in similar offences in future;

e) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without permission of the said Court until the case registered against him is disposed off.