SRI. NARASIMHALU vs STATE

Learned SPP has filed statement of objections to the petition. The same is taken on record.

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner the learned Spl.PP.

This is the petition filed by the petitioneraccused under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail of the alleged offences punishable

under Sections 8(c) R/W 20(b) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. (for short ''NDPS Act''), registered in MCB NO

NCB.F.NO.48/1/14/2017/BZU.

The brief facts of the prosecution case as per the complaint averments, complainant-authority received information on 08.12.2017 that one

person by name Narasimhalu wearing purple jacket is coming from Puttaparthi, Andhrapradesh and the said person is carrying large quantity of

Cannabis/Ganja in white gunny bags and will be traveling in general compartment at rear end of train No.18463 "" Prashanthi express"" and it will

arrive to Yelahanka Railway Station, Bangalore at 10.30 AM. On the said information alleged to have received at 08.30 AM in the morning. After

obtaining required permission from the Superintendent, NCB, BZU, the staff along with all necessary equipments departed from the office and

reached Yelahanka Railway station around 10.30 hours. The said staff approached two persons and NCB team requested them to cooperate with

them as witnesses in such proceedings to be conducted by the NCB. They agreed for the same. The train reached Yelahanka Railway Station

around 12.10 hours and one person wearing purple colour jacket was carrying the two bulky gunny bags and he was walking towards the exit of

the platform. The NCB team intercepted the said person near the parking area introduced them as NCB officers by showing their identity cards

and also introduced the independent witnesses. On opening both the gunny bags dark green colour flowering fruiting tops of cannabis plant was

found and it had strong smell. Both the gunny bags were weighing separately. One was weighing 10 KG and another 11.8 Kg. In total, it was

measuring 21.8 KG.

Learned counsel for the petitioner made the submission that mandatory requirement under Section 37 of the NDPS Act are not followed in this

case to say that it is a Ganja material and the quantity was above the commercial quantity, no test report like quantity test, quality test reports are

not produced by the prosecution. Hence he made the submission that there is a false implication of the petitioner in the said case and he is ready to

abide by any reasonable conditions to be imposed by the court. Hence the petition may be allowed and petitioner may be released on bail.

Learned Spl. PP opposed the petition contending that looking to the prosecution material, there is a prima facie case made out by the

prosecution. The materials seized in the presence of two independent witnesses which goes to show that it is more than a commercial quantity.

Therefore, as per Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the petitioner is not entitled to be granted with bail. It is also his submission that the seizure

mahazar taken in the presence of panch witnesses also goes to show that alleged Ganja has been seized from the possession of the petitioner

herein who was holding two white gunny bags. He also made the submission that matter is still under investigation. Hence at this stage, petitioner is

not entitled to be granted with bail.

I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition and the remand application copy, so also the objection statement filed by the learned

Spl.PP to the said application.

Looking to the contents of the remand application and other prosecution materials, there is no specific averments by the prosecution that

immediately after the receipt of the credible information about the travelling of the person in the train possessing the ganja entered into SHD and in

the absence of making a mention about it in the station house diary, it can be said that there is no fulfillment of section 42(i) of the NDPS Act. As

ruled by the Hon''ble Apex Court, the purpose of fulfillment of the requirement of the mandatory provisions is considered to be a relevant fact

which can be taken into consideration by the courts of law even while considering the bail petitions.

Apart from that, so far as quantity of the Ganja and that it is said to be the Cannabis is concerned, no test report is produced by the prosecution

so as to quality test as well as quantity test. Therefore, in the absence of such materials at this stage, only on the basis of the say made by the

complainant and other officials of the said Department, it is difficult for the court to come to the conclusion that weight of the cannabis is 21.8 KG

and it is a Ganja material. The non-production of the two test reports quantity test and quality test is also not in accordance with the standing

instructions issued by the Central Government fixing the timeframe for production of the said test reports.

Petitioner denied the allegations made in the complaint and the other materials. Apart from that the remand application contents and other

materials goes to show that it was before the seizure of the said materials, the petitioner was not at all asked where it is to be done either before the

Gazetted Officer or it is to be done before the Magistrate and explained about his legal right to exercise the said option.

Therefore, looking to these materials and the contention of the petitioner herein that there is a false implication and he is ready to be abide by

any of the reasonable conditions to be imposed by the court and as alleged, Ganja has been already seized under the spot mahazar as per the

prosecution version, nothing is to be seized from the possession of the petitioner and from the date of arrest up till now, he is in custody and the

alleged offences are not exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment. Hence, by imposing reasonable conditions he can be admitted to

regular bail. Accordingly, petition is allowed subject to following conditions:

Petitioner has to execute a personal bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (One Lakh Rupees only) and he has to furnish one surety for the likesum to the

satisfaction of the concerned Court.

The petitioners shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or indirectly.

Since investigation is still on, he has to appear before the I.O. as and when called for and to cooperate with the further investigation in the

matter.

He has to appear before the concerned Court regularly.