AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K.N. Keshavanarayana
Criminal Petitions 1513/2012 and 1661/2012 are filed u/s 438 of Cr.P.C. while Criminal Petition 1946/2012 is filed u/s 439 of Cr.P.C. by the respective petitioners seeking bail in connection with case in Crime No. 242/2011 of Manipal Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 8 & 20(B) of NDPS Act, 1985.Since all these petitions relate to one and the same case registered by the respondent-police, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
2 According to the case of the prosecution, at about 8.15 p.m. on 3.11.2011, P.M. Diwakar, Police Sub-Inspector of Coastal Police Station, Malpe received a credible information about few persons selling and buying brown sugar near Paradise Resort situated close to Malpe Beach; immediately, he secured the presence of panchas, apprised them about the information received, thereafter along with panchas and staff, proceeded to the place; while they were waiting near the Causality Section of KMC Hospital, Manipal, at about 10.15 p.m. they saw a rickshaw being parked; at about 10.30 p.m., car bearing registration No. KA-04-MD-4115 came there with four persons and at the same time two persons came there on a motor cycle bearing registration No. KA-20-B-8411; when all of them were discussing and exchanging some articles, the raiding party surrounded them. However, out of them few ran away, while others were apprehended and they were found in possession of brown sugar, which was seized later. Subsequently, the case was transferred to Manipal Police Station on point of jurisdiction.
3 On coming to know of the registration of the case, the petitioners in Criminal Petition Nos. 1513/12 and 1661/12 filed petitions u/s 438 Cr.P.C. before the learned Sessions Judge, which came to be rejected. The Petition filed u/s 439 Cr.P.C by the petitioner in Criminal Petition No. 1946/12 came to be rejected by the Learned Sessions Judge. Therefore, the petitioners have presented these petitions before this Court.
4 Petitions are opposed by the Respondent-State.
5 I have heard the learned counsel appearing on both sides and perused the records made available.
6 It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that, at this stage, materials available on record, prima facie do not make out any case against these petitioners, therefore, they are entitled for the relief of bail. It is also contended that the samples said to have been drawn from the substance alleged to have been seized from the possession of the some of the accused persons was sent to FSL, Bangalore, for chemical analysis and the report submitted by the FSL is in the negative, therefore, no case''s made out against the petitioners. However, it is submitted by the learned S.P.P. that in order to obtain a 2nd opinion, having regard to the peculiar circumstances of the case, the samples have been sent to Truth Lab, Bangalore and report from the said lab is awaited.
7 As noticed supra, the petitioners in Criminal Petitions 1513/12 & 1661/11 have been arraigned as accused in the aforesaid case registered by the respondent-police for non-bailable offences. Therefore, their apprehension that they are likely to be arrested in the aforesaid case is well-founded. These two petitioners, According to the prosecution, ran away from the place and their identity was disclosed later and they being police personnel have absconded from the place and have kept themselves out of reach of the Investigating Officer. Therefore, it is contended that they are not entitled for the relief of anticipatory bail. According to the prosecution, at this stage, there are reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioners are guilty of the offences alleged and therefore, having regard to the nature and gravity of the offences as well as the punishment prescribed for the same, they are not entitled for the relief of bail.
8 As noticed supra, even according to the prosecution, the substance said to have been seized from the possession of the apprehended accused persons was sent to FSL for chemical analysis and the report from the FSL was in the negative. In other words, as per the chemical analysis report, the samples sent for examination was neither a Narcotic drag nor a Psychotropic. Though it is submitted that for the purpose of second opinion, the samples have been sent to another lab, till today, no report is received. Even if the report is received, it would not have the effect of erasing the earlier report. It is only during the trial of the case the trial Court will have to appreciate both the reports and then to form an opinion. Having regard to the report submitted by the FSL on chemical analysis of the specimen sent for examination, at this stage, there are no prima facie materials to indicate that the substance seized from the apprehended accused persons was either a Narcotic Drug or a Psychotropic substance. Therefore, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioners are guilty of the aforesaid offences. It is contended that the petitioners, who have sought anticipatory bail are police constables and the Investigation has revealed their involvement in several other cases and therefore, their custodial interrogation is very much necessary.
9 If according to the prosecution, any of these petitioners are involved in any other cases, it is open to the police concerned to apprehend such accused persons in connection with those cases. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, since there are no prima facie evidence to indicate that the seized substance was either a Narcotic Drug or a Psychotropic substance, the petitioners are entitled for the relief of bail.
In the result, the petitions are allowed. The Respondent-police are hereby directed to release the petitioners in Criminal Petitions 1531/12 & 1661/12 on bail in the event of their arrest in connection with the case in Crime No. 242/11 of Manipal Police Station, on each of them executing personal bond for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) with one surety for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the investigating Officer and subject to further conditions that,
i) Upon such arrest and release, the petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when so required by him and shall co-operate in the Investigation of the case;
ii) they shall not tamper or terrorise the prosecution witnesses in any manner,
iii) they shall appear before the Special Court on all the dates of hearing without fail.
iv) they shall not indulge In any acts similar to the one alleged against them.
Petitioner in Criminal Petition 1961/12 is ordered to be released on bail in connection with the case in Crime No. 242/11 of Manipal Police Station, on his executing personal bond for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) with one surety for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the Special Court and subject to further conditions that;-
i) he shall not tamper or terrorise the prosecution witnesses in any manner;
ii) he shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when so required by him and shall co-operate in the Investigation of the case;
iii) he shall not indulge in any acts similar to the one alleged against him;
iv) they shall appear before the Special Court on all the dates as directed by the Special Judge.