The State of Karnataka, By Station House Officer vs Om Prakash, S/o Gajaram

Heard the learned High Court Government Pleader for the petitioner-State.

This petition is filed by the State, seeking cancellation of the bail granted by the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Mysuru, dated 28.08.2015 in Crime No.144/2015.

The brief factual matrix of the case is that, on 13.08.2015 at about 11.30 A.M., the Metagalli Police have received a credible information that a person is illegally possessing Narcotic substance in his Ruchika Mobile Shop situated at SBI Bank Road, Mysuru. After following the procedure contemplated under law, the Assistant Commissioner of Police along with other staff raided the shop of the accused at about 1.00 P.M. On search of the shop, the chocolate coloured cubes weighing 2.700 kgs opium chunks were found in a cloth bag in the custody of the accused. By conducting the mahazar, the said Narcotic substance was seized from the shop of the accused and the accused was arrested and investigation appears to have been done. During the crime stage the accused moved the Sessions Court for grant of bail. The trial Court considering the gravity of the offence and also punishment prescribed for the said offence has granted the bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.

Learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently contended that, the offences alleged against the accused is a serious offence and hence, the court ought not to have granted the bail to the accused. It is further contended that the trial Court has not considered the gravity of the offence and the punishment prescribed for the said offence. However, at this stage, these two grounds are not available to the State to seek cancellation of bail for the simple reason that the trial Court has considered factual matrix of the case at paragraph 9 of the order, wherein it has considered that the said offence is not exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment of life and there is no previous antecedent of the accused involving in any other case, the trial court has granted bail by imposing certain conditions.

It is not the case of petitioner-State, that the accused has violated any of the conditions imposed by the trial court. There is no material at this stage to show that the accused is a habitual offender involved in any other case. Once bail is granted, the State has to make out a strong case for rejection of the same or for cancellation of the bail. It appears that incident had happened on 13.08.2015 more than one year five months have been elapsed. The prosecution must have filed charge sheet before the trial court, but no such charge sheet has been produced before this court. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any reasons to interfere with the discretion exercised by the trial court while granting the bail. Hence, the petition deserves to be dismissed.

Accordingly the petition is dismissed.