Manjunatha @ Eedigara Manjunatha vs State Of Karnataka

Ravi V. Hosmani, J

This petition for anticipatory bail is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’ for short) by accused no.2 (petitioner), in Crime no.4/2023-24 registered by Sandur Excise Range Police Station, Ballari for offences punishable under Section 20 (a), 20 (b) (ii) (B), 25, 8 (b) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, ‘NDPS Act’).

Sri Anwar Basha B., learned counsel for petitioner submitted case of prosecution was that complainant – Excise Inspector while on patrol on 24.07.2023 at about 3.45 p.m. near Sandur Town, Hospete received credible information about illegal growing, stocking and sale of ganja at an Ashram. He immediately transcribed information into writing, informed Deputy Superintendent of Excise, Ballari Range by telephone and reached spot for conducting search accompanied with panchas. When they reached spot at around 4.00 p.m., one person Khavi clothes ran away from Ashram on seeing them in uniform, leading to being suspicion. As there was no time for obtaining search warrant, complainant conducted search and found one ganja plant about 4 feet in height amongst flowering and other plants, weighing 900 grams in total. Despite search, they did not find any other ganja plants. Inside a room in Ashram, they found a plastic cover containing 300 grams of dried ganja. On Dishaank App, they found petitioner was owner of land. They also found Aadhar Card of a person who resembled Swamiji seen earlier running away from spot. Above material was seized after drawing panchanama. Thereafter, complaint was filed for aforesaid offences.

It was submitted, petitioner was an agriculturist by profession holding about 30 acres of land. He had constructed a building with temple and ashram for facilitating pilgrims. He had not grown ganja and there was every possibility of plant found to have grown accidentally. It was further submitted, 300 grams of dried ganja seized did not belong to him. It was submitted, total quantity was recovered was in any case less than commercial quantity and as there were absolutely no criminal antecedents, only to tarnish his reputation in society, he was being falsely implicated. It was submitted, after completion of investigation charge sheet was already filed on 13.03.2024. On above grounds sought for allowing petition.

On other hand, Smt.Girija S.Hiremath, learned HCGP for respondent opposed petition. It was submitted, on receipt of credible information, complainant had conducted search of premises and land belonging to petitioner. Search had resulted in recovery of 300 grams of dried ganja inside building and one plant growing nearby weighing 900 grams. Though same did not quantify as commercial quantity, it was more than small quantity. It was submitted, accused no.1 was absconding and in case petitioner were to be granted anticipatory bail, same would hamper further investigation/trial. On above grounds sought to reject bail.

Heard learned counsel and perused available material.

From above, point that arises for consideration is:

“Whether petitioner is entitled for anticipatory bail with conditions?”

This petition, for anticipatory bail is by accused no.2 in Crime no.4/2023-24 registered for offences punishable under Sections 20 (a), 20 (b) (ii) (B), 25 and 8(b) of NDPS Act. As per prosecution, on receipt of information when they conducted raid/search on land/premises, they found one live ganja plant 4 feet in height weighing 900 grams growing in land amongst other plants and 300 grams of dried ganja inside a room and Dishaank App showed land belonged to petitioner, therefore he was guilty of offences under provisions of NDPS Act.

Though mere act of growing and possessing of ganja would constitute offence under provisions of NDPS Act, at this stage it is prima facie seen that only one ganja plant was found growing in about 30 acres claimed to be belonging to petitioner would require consideration. Even as per prosecution, accused no.1 whose Aadhar Card was found inside room, ran away from spot on seeing complainant and dried ganja was beside it. There are no criminal antecedents of petitioner. Petitioner owns movable and immovable properties and claims to be permanent resident of Sandur Town. Further, charge sheet is already filed on 13.03.2024. Though commission of offences as alleged would be a matter for trial until convicted, all accused would be deemed innocent. Petitioner is an agriculturist and without any criminal antecedents and quantity seized was intermediate quantity and not commercial. As held by Hon’ble Supreme Court, purpose of bail is not to punish undertrial, but to ensure he attends trial, which could be secured by imposing appropriate conditions. Thus, point for consideration is answered in affirmative.

Hence, following:

ORDER

Petition is allowed. It is ordered that petitioner/accused no.2 shall be enlarged on bail, in case of his arrest in Crime no.4/2023-24 of Sandur Excise Range Police Station Ballari for offences punishable under Sections 20 (a), 20 (b) (ii) (B), 25 and 8 (b) of NDPS Act, subject to following conditions:

a) Petitioner shall appear before Principal District, Sessions and Special Judge, Ballari, within 15 days from date of this order and execute personal bond for sum of Rs.50,000/-with two sureties for likesum to satisfaction of Court.

b) He shall appear before Investigating Officer for purpose of investigation as and when required and co-operate with investigation.

c) He shall not threaten, tamper with or influence prosecution witnesses, either directly or indirectly.

d) He shall not leave jurisdiction of above Court without prior permission, until completion of trial.

e) He shall not indulge in any criminal activities.

f) It is clarified that all observations herein are prima facie and not bind trial Court.