Sri Bhimanna S/o Gurappa Baluragi vs The State of Karnataka Through Horti Police Station, Rep. by its State Public Prosecutor

This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., seeking regular bail in Crime No.78/2017 of Horti Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 18 R/w Section 20(b) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as ''NDPS Act'' for short).

Brief facts leading to filing of the complaint are that, on 11.04.2017 at about 2.00 p.m., the respondent- police received a credible information that the accused had illegally stored the Ganja for the purpose of sale in his land. Immediately by following the procedure, he went near the spot and there he saw a person sitting beneath the Mango Tree in front of a house and on enquiry he took out paper packets from a plastic cover and also a smoking pipe and chits packed with dry leaves powder and seeds and they smelt the same and noticed that it was Ganja and the said person told his name and on enquiry he took the complainant towards the haystack and produced two plastic covers which were hidden in front of the house of the accused and on enquiry he disclosed that he used to take the Ganja in the vehicle for selling the same. The said ganja has been seized by following the procedure and a case has been registered against the accused.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the Additional State Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State.

The main grounds urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner are that petitioner is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. The alleged offences are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. It is also contended that the Ganja, which is said to have been seized is 9.350 kgs which is less than commercial quantity. It is further contended that the entire Ganja which has been seized has been weighed including seeds, leaves and sticks. It is further contended that already the investigation procedure has been completed and the petitioner is not required for the purpose of further investigation or interrogation. It is further contended that the petitioner is permanent resident of Horti village and he has got both movable and immovable properties, therefore, there is no chance of he being absconded. Further, it is contended that if the petitioner is released on bail, he is ready to abide by the conditions to be imposed by this Court and ready to offer sureties. On these grounds, he prays for allowing the petition.

On the contrary, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State would contend that the petitioner deals with the huge quantity of Ganja and it is his profession and if he is released on bail, again he may indulge in similar type of criminal activities. He would also contend that still the investigation is in progress and at this juncture, if the petitioner is released on bail, he may tamper with the prosecution witnesses, he may abscond and he may not be available for trial. On these grounds, he prays for dismissal of the petition.

I have gone through the copy of the complaint and other material produced along with the petition.

By going through the contents of the complaint, it indicates that when the police conducted a raid on credible information at the place of incident, there they noticed the ganja. At the time of seizing the ganja, it has been observed that it is containing the dry leaves, stem, sticks and seeds and the total weight of the said Ganja which has been seized is 9.350 kgs. As per the definition mentioned in the NDPS Act, it is only the stem, seeds, flowers and buds which is considered to be canabi. Be that as it may. Even if the entire quantity of ganja which has been seized is taken as it is, it is less than commercial quantity. When the investigation procedures have been completed, the petitioner is not required for the purpose of further investigation or interrogation and the seized ganja is less than commercial quantity, under such circumstances, I feel that by imposing some stringent conditions if the petitioner is released on bail, it would meet the ends of justice.

For the above reasons, the petition is allowed and petitioner/accused is ordered to be released on bail, subject to the following conditions:

i. The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Only) with two solvent sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court;

ii. The petitioner shall not indulge in hampering the investigation or tampering the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly;

iii. The petitioner shall make himself available to the Investigating Officer as and when required and co-operate for investigation;

iv. The petitioner shall mark his attendance before the Investigating Officer once in fortnight till the trial is concluded.