MR. M. MOHAMMED ZIYAD v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

(BY KUM. ARYA GEORGE, ADV., FOR SRI BIJOY M.T, ADV.) AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BEGUR POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU - 560 001. (BY SRI CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 CR.PC (FILED U/S 438 R/W 442 BNSS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER (ANNEXURE-A) PASSED BY THE HONBLE XXXIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL …RESPONDENT - 2 - NC: 2026:KHC:792 CRL.RP No. 1772 of 2025 HC-KAR AND SESSIONS JUDGE, SPL.JUDGE (NDPS) CCH-33 BENGALURU IN SPL.C.C.NO.657/2021 DATED 11.09.2025. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY ORAL ORDER

#1. Accused No.3 is before this Court in this Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 R/w Section 401 of Cr.P.C, with a prayer to set aside the order dated 11.09.2025 passed in Special C.C.No.657 of 2021 by the Court of XXXIII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge and Special Judge (NDPS) Bangalore registered for offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 22(b), 20(B)(ii)(C) of NDPS Act.

#3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. Petitioner has been charge sheeted for the aforesaid offences by the respondent police and he is arrayed as accused no. 3 in the charge sheet. He had filed an application under Section 227 of Cr.P.C, before the Trial Court with a prayer to discharge him alleging that there is no sufficient material against him to frame charges for the alleged offences. The said - 3 - NC: 2026:KHC:792 CRL.RP No. 1772 of 2025 HC-KAR application was opposed by the prosecution and the Trial Court vide the order impugned has rejected the said application. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

#4. Learned counsel for the petitioner having reiterated the grounds urged in the petition submits that there is no seizure of any contraband article from the possession of the petitioner. The petitioner was not at all present at the spot when the seizure of the contraband articles were made. Only for the reason that his phone number was found with the accused nos.1 and 2, he was subsequently summoned and arraigned as accused in the present case. Petitioner is residing with his parents. She submits that Trial Court has failed to appreciate aforesaid aspects of the matter and has erred in rejecting application filed by the petitioner under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. In support of her argument, she has placed reliance on the following judgments:

#1. SANJEEV AND ANOTHER V State of HIMACHAL PRADESH - CRIMINAL APPEAL No.870 of 2016 disposed of on 09.03.2022. - 4 - NC: 2026:KHC:792 CRL.RP No. 1772 of 2025 HC-KAR

#2. YASH JAYESHBHAI CHAMPAKLAL SHAH V. STATE FO GUJARAT - Criminal Mis. Application No.1234 of 2022 dated 02.03.2022.

#3. BHARAT CHAUDHARY V UNION Of INDIA - Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No.5703 of 2021 disposed of on

13.12.2021.

#5. Per contra, learned HCGP for the respondent has argued in support of the order impugned and submits that the petitioner was found along with accused nos.1 and 2 at the spot from where the contraband articles were seized. Seizure is from the room in which accused nos.1 to 3 were residing and since the accused persons were in conscious possession of the contraband article, the Trial Court has rightly rejected application filed by the petitioner under Section 227 of Cr.P.C.

#6. FIR in the present case has been registered based on the first information of G. Lakshmikanthaya, Inspector of Police, Anti-Narcotics Wing, CCB, Bangalore. In the first information, it is averred that based on credible information received, a raid was conducted to the house in which accused nos.1 to 3 were residing. The raid was conducted on - 5 - NC: 2026:KHC:792 CRL.RP No. 1772 of 2025 HC-KAR

16.11.2019 in the house in which accused nos.1 to 3 were residing and from the possession of the accused as well as from the house in which the accused were residing the contraband articles were seized and subjected to panchanama. Though learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner was not at all present at the spot of crime and when the raid was conducted and on the other hand he was in the house of his parents, no material is produced in support of such contention either before the Trial court or before this Court. The seized contraband articles were forwarded to Forensic Science Laboratory and the report received from the Forensic Science Laboratory are positive to the contraband substances. The trial Court having appreciated that the charge sheet material prima facie makes out a case against the petitioner for the alleged offences has rightly rejected the application filed by him under Section 227 of Cr.P.C.

#7. The judgment in the case of SANJEEV AND ANOTHER (supra) has been rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a criminal appeal, which was filed challenging the judgment and order of conviction and in the said case, the - 6 - NC: 2026:KHC:792 CRL.RP No. 1772 of 2025 HC-KAR order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court was set aside by the High Court, which was reversed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, taking into consideration that there was no recovery from the possession of the accused therein. The judgment in the case of YASH JAYESHBHAI CHAMPAKLAL SHAH (supra) and in the case of BHARAT CHAUDHARY (supra) have been rendered while considering bail application of an accused who was charge sheeted for offence punishable under the provisions of NDPS Act. In the said cases, for the reason that there was no material to show that the accused therein was in conscious possession of the contraband articles seized, he was directed to be enlarged on bail.

#8. The aforesaid judgments cannot be made applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case, since the petitioner was found along with accused nos.1 and 2 in the house to which the raid was conducted and the contraband articles were seized. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the Trial Court was fully justified in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. I do not find any reason to interfere with the same. - 7 - NC: 2026:KHC:792 CRL.RP No. 1772 of 2025 HC-KAR

#9. Accordingly, revision petition is dismissed.

#10. Pending IA'S does not survive for consideration. Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE NMS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 55