Sri Hanumantha Naik vs State of Karnataka

This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail, to direct the respondent-police to release the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest for the offences punishable under Sections 20(i), 20(a) and 8(b) of the NDPS Act registered in respondent police station Crime No.11/2017-18.

Brief facts of the prosecution case are, a suo moto complaint has been filed by the respondentauthorities stating that the land in Sy.No.80 of Melina Kunchenahalli village measuring into an extent of 2 acres is cultivated by the petitioner under Bagar Hukum Saguvali. The respondent authorities along with their staff and panchas went to the land on 7.10.2017 and conducted panchanama and it was found that 110 ganja plants were grown. Through the Village Accountant of the concerned area they verified the records. It is seen that the petitioner and several others were cultivating the land under Bagar Hukum cultivation. These 110 ganja plants were grown along with maize crops and the said ganja plants are uprooted and seized under the panchanama. On the basis of the said complaint case was registered for the above offences.

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused and also the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.

I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and other materials placed on record.

Looking to the complaint averments, though it is the case of the prosecution that they have received credible information about the growing of the ganja plants by the petitioner, but in the prosecution material there is no mention that immediately after receipt of such information same was reduced into writing in the station house diary in compliance of Section 42(1) of the NDPS Act. As per the complaint averments the petitioner along with other persons was cultivating the land in Sy.No.80, but what is the exact portion of the land which is in physical possession of the petitioner herein is to be proved before the concerned Court. Petitioner has denied the allegations made in the complaint.

It is alleged that 110 ganja plants were grown in the said land and they were uprooted. So far as the weight of the said plants is concerned, it is not the case of the prosecution at this stage that only the flowers and fruits of the said plants are taken into consideration. The materials on record shows that entire plants along with roots is weighed, which is not in accordance with the provisions of the NDPS Act. As per the definition of Section 2(b) of the NDPS Act, only flowering and fruiting of the plants is to be taken into consideration.

It is the contention of the petitioner herein that there is a false implication and he has undertaken to abide by any reasonable conditions to be imposed by this Court. The offences alleged are not exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Hence, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case to exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioner.

Accordingly, petition is allowed. The respondent-Police are directed to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 20(i), 20(a) and 8(b) of the NDPS Act registered in respondent police station Crime No.11/2017-18, subject to the following conditions:

i. Petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and shall furnish one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the arresting authority.

ii. Petitioner shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or indirectly.

iii. Petitioner shall make himself available before the Investigating Officer for interrogation, as and when called for and to cooperate with the further investigation.

iv. Petitioner shall appear before the concerned Court within 30 days from the date of this order and to execute the personal bond and the surety bond.