High CourtsSingle Bench(2026) 02 KAR CK 0644

Afzal Shariff vs State Of Karnataka

Karnataka High Court, Principal Bench · Decided on 12 February 2026

HON’BLE JUDGES
Shivashankar Amarannavar, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Petition No. 339 Of 2026 [(439(Cr.PC) / 483(BNSS)]

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

10 paragraphs · 749 words

Shivashankar Amarannavar, J

1.

This petition is filed by sole accused under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagrika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 praying to grant bail in Crime No.554/2025 of Kamakshipalya Police Station registered for offences punishable under Sections 8(c) and 22(C) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.

2.

Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for respondent - State.

3.

Learned counsel for petitioner would contend that, the petitioner has been arrested on 20.11.2025 and he has been taken to Police custody for five (5) days. The petitioner has been taken to a place near Dodda Aladamara for investigation to ascertain the source of the contraband seized. The total contraband seized is 270 grams which is kept in the two wheeler of the petitioner and is alleged to be MDMA crystal. The seizure of the contraband has not been videographed as required under Section 105 of BNSS. On that point, he placed reliance on the decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of SHADAB VS. STATE OF U.P. passed in CRIMINAL MISC.BAIL APPLICATION NO.40989/2025 dated 05.01.2026. The said seizure is in the daytime at 04.30 p.m., the vehicle does not belong to the petitioner. The investigation is in progress and the petitioner is in judicial custody since more than eighty (80) days. With these, he prayed to allow the petition.

4.

Per contra, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for respondent would contend that, the quantity of contraband seized is 270 grams of MDMA crystal. The said contraband seized is of commercial quantity. The petitioner was trying to sell the contraband by keeping it in his vehicle. The matter is under investigation. The offence alleged against the petitioner is a heinous offence punishable with imprisonment which may extend to twenty (20) years. If the petitioner is granted bail, there are chances of he repeating the similar offence. With these, he prayed for dismissal of the petition.

5.

Having heard the learned counsels appearing for parties, the Court has perused the FIR, complaint and other materials placed on record.

6.

The petitioner was in conscious possession of the contraband kept in his two wheeler. The total quantity of contraband seized is 270 grams and is alleged to be MDMA crystal. The said quantity of contraband seized is a commercial quantity. The offence alleged against the petitioner is punishable with imprisonment which may extend to twenty (20) years. Whether the seizure has been conducted without video recording is a matter to be considered at the trial. As the quantity seized is a commercial quantity, the rigor of Section 37 of the NDPS Act is attracted. There are no reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner is not guilty of offence alleged against him. If the petitioner is granted bail, there are chances of he again repeating the same offence. The trafficking in Narcotic Drugs is affecting the Public, specially the youngsters.

7.

The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of ANKUSH VIPAN KAPOOR VS. NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY reported in (2025) 5 SCC 155, has observed as under:

"86. The ills of drug abuse seem to be shadowing the length and breadth of our country with the Central and every State Government fighting against the menace of substance abuse. The debilitating impact of drug trade and drug abuse is an immediate and serious concern for India. As the globe grapples with the menace of escalating Substance Use Disorders ("SUD") and an ever accessible drug market, the consequences leave a generational imprint on public health and even national security. Article 47 of the Constitution makes it a duty of the State to regard the raising of the level of nutrition and the standard of living of its people and the improvement of public health as among its primary duties and in particular the State shall endeavour to bring about prohibition of the consumption except for medicinal purposes of intoxicating drinks and of drugs which are injurious to health. The State has a responsibility to address the root causes of this predicament and develop effective intervention strategies to ensure that India's younger population, which is particularly vulnerable to substance abuse, is protected and saved from such menace. This is particularly because substance abuse is linked to social problems and can contribute to child maltreatment, spousal violence, and even property crime in a family."

8.

Considering all the above aspects, the petitioner has not made out any grounds for grant of bail. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.