AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M G Uma, J
The petitioner-accused No.4 is before this Court seeking grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in Crime No. 19/2024 of Ashokpuram Police Station, pending on the file of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru registered for the offences punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(B) and 27 (a) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'the NDPS Act'), on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant Sri.Poovaiah.K.C., Police Inspector.
Heard Sri. Hashmath Pasha, learned Senior advocate for the petitioner and Sri. Rajath, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent -State. Perused the materials on record.
Learned Senior advocate for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is arrayed as accused No.4 He has not committed any offences as alleged. He has been falsely implicated in the matter without any basis. It is stated that accused Nos.2 and 3 were apprehended and 99 grams of ganja was recovered from their custody. They informed about procuring ganja from accused No.1. It is stated that accused No.1 was apprehended and little more than 2 Kgs of ganja was recovered from his custody. It is the contention of the prosecution that accused No.1 during investigation referred the name of the petitioner as supplier of the ganja. Only on the said statement which is said to have been given by accused No.1, the petitioner was apprehended and since 31.03.2024 he is in judicial custody. No ganja was recovered at the instance of the petitioner. He is the permanent resident of the address mentioned in the cause title to the petition and is ready and willing to abide by any of the conditions that would be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays to allow the petition.
Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader opposing the petition submitted that serious allegations are made against the petitioner for having committed the offences. Accused Nos.1 to 3 have stated that it was this petitioner who supplied the contraband. The investigation is still in progress. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is not entitled for grant of bail. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the petition.
In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:
“Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.?”
My answer to the above point is in ‘Affirmative’ for the following:
REASONS
The allegations made against the petitioner is of serious nature. It is the case of the prosecution that it was accused Nos.1 to 3 who referred the name of the petitioner as the supplier of ganja. Admittedly no contraband was recovered at his instance. It is not the case of the prosecution that the petitioner is having any criminal antecedents. Therefore, the detention of the petitioner in custody would amount to infringement to his right to life and liberty. Under such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is not required for further investigation and he is entitled to be enlarged on bail subject to conditions, which will take care of the apprehension expressed by the learned High Court Government Pleader that the petitioner may abscond or may tamper or threaten the prosecution witnesses.
Accordingly, I answer the above point in the affirmative and proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The petition is allowed.
The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.19/2024 of Ashokpuram Police Station, pending on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru, on obtaining the bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court, subject to the following conditions:
a). The petitioner shall not commit similar offences.
b). The petitioner shall not threaten or tamper with the prosecution witnesses.
c). The petitioner shall appear before the Court as and when required.
If in case, the petitioner violates any of the conditions as stated above, the prosecution will be at liberty to move the Trial Court seeking cancellation of bail.
On furnishing the sureties by the petitioner, the Trial Court is at liberty to direct the Investigating Officer to verify the correctness of the address and authenticity of the documents furnished by the petitioner and the sureties and a report may be called for in that regard, which is to be submitted by the Investigating Officer within 5 days. The Trial Court on satisfaction, may proceed to accept the sureties for the purpose of releasing the petitioner on bail.