MR. BHARATH v. Court of Karnataka

MR. BHARATH S/O DEVARAJ, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 78-A/5, FLAT NO. 03, 3RD CROSS, DOMLURU, BANGALORE - 71. (BY SRI. N. VENKATESH, ADVOCATE) AND: …PETITIONER L Location: High Court of Karnataka STATE OF KARNATAKA BY HALASURU POLICE STAT ION, REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. RAHUL RAI K, HCGP) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439 OF CR.PC PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER WHO IS ACCUSED ON BAIL FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE P/U/S 20(II)B, 8(C), 22(C) OF NDPS ACT IN CRi.NO.378/2023 OF RESPONDENT POLICE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC:23425 CRL.P No. 2825 of 2024 ORDER The petitioner-accused is before this Court seeking grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., in Crime No. 378/2023 of Halasur Police Station, pending on the file of the learned City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 20(II)B, 8(C), 22(C) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, 'NDPS') on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant-Sri. Viresh R.

Heard Sri. N. Venkatesh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Rahul Rai K, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State. Perused the materials on record.

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 ‘negative’ for the following: - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:23425 CRL.P No. 2825 of 2024 R E A S O N S

The petitioner being the sole accused is seeking grant of bail. He was apprehended on 31.12.2023, and since then he is in judicial custody. It is suspected that the petitioner was selling contraband to the general public. On personal search of the petitioner, he was found in possession of 24.72 gram MDMA Crystal, 12.62 grams of MDMA ecstasy pills and

1.54 grams of ganja as he was selling the same to the general public. Admittedly, the same are seized from the petitioner which is of commercial quantity. Investigation is completed and the charge sheet is filed. The Investigating Officer has placed sufficient materials which prima-facie discloses commission of offence. FSL report is also received, according to which, both the samples tested positive for methamphetamine and MDMA respectively. There are no grounds to satisfy myself about the twin conditions mentioned in Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of NDPS Act. Looking to the nature and seriousness of the offence, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled for grant of bail.