Mohammed Fuzail vs The State of Karnataka

Budihal R.B., J.—This is the petition filed by the petitioner-accused No. 2 u/s 439 of Cr. P.C. seeking his release on bail for the offence punishable u/s 22(C) of Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substance Act 1985 registered by the respondent-police in Crime No. 493/2013.

The brief facts of the prosecution case is that on 11-08-2013 in the evening at about 6 ''0'' clock the complainant-Prashanth M.M., Police Inspector, Women & Narcotic Squad, CCB, NT Pet, Bangalore City received a credibly information from the informant that two unknown persons in a two wheeler vehicle were selling LSD blotter papers to the youths near Srinidhi Auto Service Centre, Bilekalli, B.G. Road and told if they come along with him, he will show the said persons. On receipt of the information, the complainant secured panchas and went to the spot and attacked LSD blotter papers, cash of Rs. 1,000/-, two mobile phones and vehicle and brought them to the police station and registered the case.

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.

Learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of his argument submitted that there is a delay in lodging the complaint and in the seizure mahazar as well as in the complaint it is not mentioned specifically how many blotter papers seized from each of the accused. Learned counsel submitted that the seizure was not effected in the presence of the Gazetted Officer and it was effected in the presence of the Police Officer and further made the submission that the seizure of the said blotter papers as well as mobile phones, cash, vehicle, everything is completed and petitioner''s custody is not required and further made the submission that accused No. 1 has already been granted bail by the order of this Court. Hence, submitted to allow the petition.

As against this, the learned High Court Government Pleader during the course of his argument submitted that the blotters papers were seized from the possession of the petitioner as well as accused No. 1 and the police have seized the entire blotter papers, cash of Rs. 1,000/-, two mobile phones and vehicle. He also submitted that the Investigating Officer recorded the statement of two police constables and they have also stated about the offence committed by the petitioner and accused No. 1. Hence, he submitted that since this offence is serious in nature, petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail.

I have perused the averments made in the bail petition, FIR, complaint, the order passed by the lower Court and also the order passed by this Court in Crl. P. No. 6059/2013 dated 14-11-2013. So at this stage, as it is rightly submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner herein that the seizure has already been completed and accused No. 1 who is the main accused in this case has been released by the order of this Court. On the ground of parity, the present petitioner is also to be granted with bail. At this stage, the only apprehension of the prosecution that investigation is still in progress and if the petitioner is released on bail, he may tamper the prosecution witnesses and put hurdles in the further progress of the investigation. If reasonable conditions are imposed, which will safeguard the interest of the prosecution. The present petitioner who is accused No. 2 is also on interim bail by the order of the lower Court. Therefore, looking to the materials on record, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail.

Accordingly, petition is allowed. The petitioner-accused No. 2 is ordered to be released on bail for the offence punishable u/s 22(C) of Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substance Act 1985, registered by the respondent-police in Crime No. 493/2013, subject to the following conditions:

(i) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand. only) with one solvent surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court;

(ii) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses;

(iii) The petitioner shall appear before the concerned Court regularly.