Ambaji vs State

K.N. Phaneendra, J.—Petitioner has been arraigned as sole accused in Spl.C.C.No.28/1995 on the file of Principal District and Sessions Judge. Bidar. It appears, the charge sheet has been filed against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short “NDPS” Act).

The brief allegations are that, -

On 24.11.1994, on receipt of credible information that some ganja was kept illegally in the house at Vallepur Border Thanda, the Sub-Inspector of Excise, Aurad Sub-Range, along with his staff conducted raid on that house and searched the residential house and found two bags each weighing 20 Kgs., of ganja and totally 50 Kgs. of ganja was recovered. A mahazar was drawn at the spot and thereafter, charge sheet appears to have been filed showing the accused as absconding. The Court in spite of making all its efforts to secure the presence of the accused, as the Court was not able to locate the whereabouts of the accused, it recorded the evidence under Section 299 of Cr.P.C., and transferred the case to long pending register. Subsequently, it appears, this Court has directed all the Presiding Officers to open the cases which were transferred to Long Pending Register and to give two-three months time to secure the presence of the accused. In that context, it appears, the Trial Court also re-opened the case and issued non-bail able warrant against the accused.

It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that absolutely there is no material to implicate the accused into the crime and there is no material to show that he was informed about the case registered against him under the NDPS Act. He was not at all aware of such case pending against him. Recently, he came to know that police are searching for him in connection with the case, then he approached the Sessions Court for grant of anticipatory bail which came to be rejected.

On careful perusal of the entire charge sheet papers, it is clear that the charge sheet does not disclose that the house in which the raid has been conducted by the Excise Department belonged to the petitioner. No witnesses have been examined by the police at least to prima facie show to the Court that they have raided the house of the petitioner and recovered the said ganja from his house. Even the charge sheet papers do not disclose the house number in which ganja has been seized by the Excise Department. Even they have not made any attempt to obtain necessary documents from the village panchayat or Municipality of that village in order to show that the place where the ganja has been seized actually belonged to this petitioner. The material does not show that the petitioner is a permanent resident of said village i.e., Vallepur Border Thanda. The police also have not made any efforts to show that the said person is the resident of the said village and he has got any residential premise. The entire charge sheet discloses that the police have seized two gunny bags containing ganja from a house in Vallepure Border Thanda. Except that nothing could be made out from the charge sheet as to how the police are connecting the petitioner into the crime.

The learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously submitted that petitioner never lived in Vallepur Border Thanda. He is a permanent resident of Venkatesh Nagar in Lathur District therefore, he was not in a position to know about the pendency of any case registered against him. In support of this, he has produced a certified copy of the judgment passed in M.A.C.P. No. 34/2011 in the Court of Principal District Judge and Ex-Officio Member of MACT at Latur, wherein this petitioner has filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation for the accident met by him. In the said judgment his address is shown as resident of Venkatesh Nagar, Latur. The said petition came to be partly allowed. In view of the above circumstances, as there is material to show that this petitioner was having knowledge about the registration of any case against him and he deliberately absconded himself without surrendering himself to the Court or the police, the anticipatory bail could have been accorded in favour of him by the Sessions Court. However, the Sessions Court without appreciating the materials on record has simply swayed away by the registration of the case and quantity of ganja seized in the case. In my opinion, petitioner has made out a ground for anticipatory bail.

Hence, I pass the following:

ORDER

The petition is allowed. Consequently, the petitioner shall be released on bail in connection with Spl. C.C. No. 28/1995 pending on the file of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bidar, subject to following conditions:

(i) The petitioner shall surrender himself before the learned Special Judge within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge.

(ii) The petitioner shall not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses.

(iii) The petitioner shall appear before the Court on all future dates of hearing unless prevented by any genuine cause.