AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S Vishwajith Shetty, J
Accused in Crime No.114/2023 registered by Thalaghattapura Police Station, Bengaluru City, for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c) & 22(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, 'the Act'), is before this Court under Section 439 Cr.PC.
Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
On the basis of the complaint dated 15.04.2023 lodged by Nagaraj.R., Police Sub-Inspector attached to Thalaghattapura Police Station, the Station House Officer of Thalaghattapura Police Station, Bengaluru City, had registered FIR in Crime No.114/2023 against the petitioner herein for the aforesaid offences.
In the complaint, it is averred that on 15.04.2023 at about 8.30 a.m., complainant had received a credible information that one person was attempting to sell MDMA crystals to the public near the Silk Institute, Kanakapura Main Road, Thalaghattapura, within the jurisdiction of Thalaghattapura Police Station and based on such an information, the complainant along with his staff and panchas had raided the spot at about 9.30 a.m. and apprehended a person who was holding a bag. On enquiry, he informed his name as Junaid Ulla and from his possession 180 grams of MDMA crystals was seized. The seized contraband article was subjected to panchanama, and thereafter, the apprehended accused and the contraband article were brought to the police station and FIR in Crime No.114/2023 was registered. Subsequently, the accused was produced before the Trial Court and remanded to judicial custody. Investigation in the case is completed and charge sheet has been filed. Bail application filed by the petitioner/accused before the Trial Court in Spl. Case No.987/2023 was rejected on 16.09.2023. Therefore, he is before this Court.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner having reiterated the grounds urged in the petition, submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. She, accordingly prays to allow the petition.
Per contra, learned HCGP has opposed the petition. He submits that the contraband article seized has now tested positive for the drug known as Methamphetamine. Petitioner has criminal antecedents. He, accordingly prays to dismiss the petition.
The material on record would go to show that on credible information, raid was conducted to the alleged spot and the petitioner who was found in the spot with a bag was apprehended and from his possession, 180 grams of MDMA crystal was seized and subjected to panchanama. Subsequently, the sample of the seized contraband article was forwarded to FSL for the purpose of chemical examination and the test report received from the laboratory goes to show that the contraband article has tested positive for the drug known as Methamphetamine. As per the relevant notification issued under the Act, 50 grams of Methamphetamine is considered as commercial quantity. The seized contraband article in the present case weighs 180 grams, and therefore, the same has to be considered as commercial quantity.
The submission made by the learned HCGP that the petitioner has criminal antecedent is not disputed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. As against the petitioner, Crime No.360/2021 was registered by D.G.Halli Police Station for the offences under the provisions of the Act and in the said case, he was released on bail on 06.12.2021. Thereafter, he has indulged himself in one more case under the Act, wherein commercial quantity of drug has been seized from his possession. Therefore, merely for the reason that investigation in the case is completed and charge sheet has been filed, the petitioner cannot be enlarged on bail, more so, having regard to the rigor under Section 37(1)(b) of the Act.
In the present case, the petitioner was found in possession of commercial quantity of contraband article and the petitioner is involved in another criminal case in Crime No.360/2021 registered by D.G.Halli Police Station for the offences under the provisions of the Act. Under the circumstances, I am of the view that the petitioner is not entitled for the relief prayed for by the petitioner. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.