Criminal Petition No. 4837 of 2025 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:20535 CRL.P No. 4837 of 2025 HC-KAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4837 OF 2025 BETWEEN: BHUBAN BATRIA S/O NARASU BATRIYA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS RESIDING AT, MUKUNDPUR VILLAGE, HATIKAMBA KALYANSINGPUR RAYGADH DISTRICT ORISSA STATE - 765 029 PRESENTLY, LODGED AT CENTRAL PRISONS, BENGALURU. (BY SRI SARAVANA S, ADV., FOR SMT. BHAVYA N.G, ADV.) AND: Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Legal Reasoning
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA CONTONMENT RAILWAY POLICE STATION, BENGALURU CITY REPRESENTED BY S.P, PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT COMPLEX, BANGALORE - 560 101. …PETITIONER …RESPONDENT
Legal Reasoning
(BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL, HCGP) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439 CR.PC (FILED U/S 483 BNNS) PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL PERTAINING TO CRIME NO.40/2024 OF CANTONMENT RAILWAY POLICE STATION AND IN SPL.CC NO.31/2025 ON THE FILE OF HONBLE XXXIV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE NDPS (CCH-35) BANGALORE, ALLEGED O/P/U/S 20(B)(II)C OF NDPS ACT, 1985. - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:20535 CRL.P No. 4837 of 2025 HC-KAR THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY ORAL ORDER 1. Accused no.1 in Crime No.40/2024 registered by Bengaluru Cantonment Railway Police Station, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of NDPS Act, 1985, is before this Court under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023, seeking regular bail. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 3. FIR in Crime No.40/2024 was registered by Bengaluru Cantonment Railway Police Station, Bengaluru, for the aforesaid offence against the petitioner herein based on the first information dated 26.09.2024 received from Vasanthakumar.G.R. - Police Officer attached to Cantonment Railway Police Station, Bengaluru. In the said case, petitioner was arrested on 26.09.2024 and subsequently remanded to judicial custody. After completing the investigation, charge sheet has been filed against the petitioner for the aforesaid offence. His bail application filed before the jurisdictional - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:20535 CRL.P No. 4837 of 2025 HC-KAR Sessions Court in Crl. Misc. No.723/2025 was rejected on 19.02.2025. Therefore, he is before this Court. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner having reiterated the grounds urged in the petition, submits that there is no compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act in the present case, and therefore, seizure of contraband article gets vitiated. In the support of the said argument, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of VINAYSINH CHANDUBHA JADEJA VS STATE OF GUJARAT - (2011)1 SCC 609. Petitioner who has no other criminal antecedents is in custody from 26.09.2024. The police have seized wet ganja in the present case, and therefore, it cannot be said that the contraband article seized in the present case is of commercial quantity since the seized contraband article has not been separately weighed thereafter. Accordingly, the prays to allow the petition. 5. Per contra, learned HCGP has opposed the petition. She submits that seizure of contraband article is not from the person of the petitioner, and therefore, there is no requirement to comply with Section 50 of the NDPS Act in the present case. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:20535 CRL.P No. 4837 of 2025 HC-KAR The seized contraband article has been weighed at the time of inventory, and therefore, it is apparent that the seized contraband article is of commercial quantity. Petitioner hails from Odisha State and it would be difficult to secure his presence in the event of he being enlarged on bail. She submits that huge quantity of ganja is brought from Odisha State to Karnataka and if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, it would send a wrong message. Accordingly, she prays to dismiss the petition. 6. Perusal of the averments found in the first information would go to show that when the members of the special team constituted for checking the passengers who arrive in train from other States carrying contraband articles, were randomly checking the passengers who had arrived in Prashanthi Express from Odisha State, the petitioner who was carrying two bags and was moving suspiciously was intercepted and on inquiry, petitioner allegedly confessed that he was carrying ganja in the bags which he had brought along with him. Thereafter, from the bags which were brought by the petitioner, 9 Kgs. 780 grams and 14 Kgs. 450 grams of contraband article ganja was - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:20535 CRL.P No. 4837 of 2025 HC-KAR recovered and the total quantity of the contraband article weighing 24 Kgs. 160 grams was subjected to panchanama and a case was registered against the petitioner for the aforesaid offences in Crime No.40/2024. 7. Since the contraband article ganja has been recovered from the two bags which the petitioner had brought along with him while traveling from Odisha to Bengaluru in Prashanthi Express train and the seizure of contraband article or any other article which was the subject matter of panchanama was not from the person of the petitioner, as rightly contended by the learned HCGP, there is no requirement of complying with the mandatory provision of Section 50 of the NDPS Act in the present case. It is only if the recovery of contraband article or any other article which is the subject matter of panchanama drawn, is from the person of the accused, then the requirement of compliance of mandatory provision of Section 50 of the NDPS Act becomes necessary. Therefore, the judgment in Vijaysinh Chandubha Jadeja's case supra, on which reliance has been placed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner cannot be - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:20535 CRL.P No. 4837 of 2025 HC-KAR made applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 8. As rightly contended by the learned HCGP, the seized contraband article ganja was once again weighed at the time of inventory and even during the inventory, weight of the seized contraband is found to be 24 Kgs. 160 grams. The aforesaid quantity is considered as commercial quantity in the relevant notification issued under the provisions of the NDPS Act. Therefore, the rigor under Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act, becomes applicable as against the petitioner and unless the petitioner is able to point out to this court that the twin conditions arising out of Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act, are not applicable to him, his bail application cannot be entertained. 9. The Honb'le Supreme Court in the case of Narcotics Control Bureau Vs Mohit Aggarwal - (2022)18 SCC 374, in paragraph 19, has observed as under: “19. In our opinion the narrow parameters of bail available under Section 37 of the Act, have not been satisfied in the facts of the instant case. At this stage, it is not safe to conclude that the respondent has successfully - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:20535 CRL.P No. 4837 of 2025 HC-KAR demonstrated that there are reasonable grounds to believe that he is not guilty of the offence alleged against him, for him to have been admitted to bail. The length of the period of his custody or the fact that the charge-sheet has been filed and the trial has commenced are by themselves not considerations that can be treated as persuasive grounds for granting relief to the respondent under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.” 10. In addition to the same, learned HCGP has brought to the notice of this Court that petitioner hails from Odisha State and she has also submitted that huge quantity of contraband article ganja is regularly brought to Bengaluru from Odisha State. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that petitioner's prayer for grant of regular bail cannot be entertained at this stage. Accordingly, petition is dismissed. Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE KK