0

Karnataka High Court Grants Conditional Bail in NDPS Act Case: Cited Insignificant Quantity of Ganja Seizure

Blog, High Court of Karnataka , ,

Case Title – Abdul Bashir Vs. State of Karnataka
Case Number – CRL.P. No. 4147/2024
Dated on – 16th May, 2024
Quorum – Justice H.P. Sandesh

FACTS OF THE CASE
In the case of Abdul Bashir Vs. State of Karnataka, the Appellant, Abdul Bashir, a 34-year-old resident of Gullanpete Village, Aldur Hobli, Chikkamangaluru, Karnataka. On credible information, the Aldur Police found the Appellant watering 12 Ganja (cannabis) plants. The Police seized 80 grams of Ganja leaves and apprehended the Appellant, who initially refused to accompany them. The Appellant was charged under Section 20(a)(i) of the Narcotic and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 for cultivating Ganja plants.

ISSUES
Whether the Appellant should be granted bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for the alleged offence under Section 20(a)(i) of the Narcotic and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985?
Whether the small quantity of Ganja leaves seized from the Appellant can justify the continued detention of the Appellant?
Whether the State has sufficient evidence to support its allegations against the Appellant and whether there is any indication of a motive to falsely implicate him?

LEGAL PROVISIONS
Section 20(a)(i) of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Act, 1985 prescribes the Punishment for production, manufacture, sale, purchase, import and inter-state export of cannabis
Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 prescribes the Special Powers of the High Court or Court of Session regarding bail

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT
The Appellant, through their counsel, in the said case contented that only 18 grams of Ganja leaves were seized, which is a small quantity?
The Appellant asserted that the property where the Ganja plants were found did not belong to him and that the police falsely implicated him by planting the Ganja plants and taking photographs to fabricate evidence.
The Appellant had no prior criminal records, bolstering his claim for bail.

 CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent, through their counsel, in the said case contented that 12 Ganja plants were indeed found and there was no motive to falsely implicate the Appellant.
It was contended that the Appellant was not only cultivating but also consuming Ganja, justifying his detention

COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT
The court in the case of Abdul Bashir Vs. State of Karnataka, observed that the small quantity of seized Ganja leaves (18 grams) and recognized the distinction between this and the larger quantities in terms of severity. Despite the cultivation of 12 Ganja plants, the court considered the smaller quantity of Ganja leaves seized. The court decided of grant bail, emphasizing the smaller quantity involved and the lack of significant evidence of criminal intent beyond cultivation. However, to safeguard the interest of the prosecution, specific conditions were imposed on the Appellant. The court allowed the bail petition under the conditions that the Appellant must execute a personal bond of INR 2,00,000/- with two sureties of the same amount to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court, that the Appellant shall not tamper with the witness of the prosecution and that the Appellant must appear before the jurisdictional court on all future hearing dates exempted by the court for a genuine cause.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement Reviewed by – Sruti Sikha Maharana
Click Here to View Judgment

0

Whether failure to submit the FSL report along with the Charge sheet entitles a default bail to the accused? Supreme Court refers the matter to a Larger Bench

Blog , , , , , , , ,

Case title: Hanif Ansari Vs State (Govt of NCT of Delhi)

Case no.: SLP (Crl.) No(s). 15293/2023

Decision on: March 19th, 2024

Quoram: Justice Aniruddha Bose and Justice Sanjay Kumar

Facts of the case

In this case, the petitioner was implicated for committing offences under various provisions of The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). The allegations against him involved recovery of 2 kgs of heroin. The petitioner was arrested on 07.04.2022 and the charge sheet was filed on 07.10.2024. At that point of time, the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory, identifying the specimen allegedly seized as the aforesaid contraband article, was not available. Consequently, the petitioner approached the High Court on the grievance that the complete charge sheet was not submitted within the stipulated amount of time as per Section 167(2) of the CrPC, 1973. He thus, sought for a default-bail by invoking the provisions of Section 167(2) of the Code. However, the FSL Report was submitted later on 05.07.2023, confirming the seized material as heroin. The High Court refused to grant a default bail despite non-filling of the FSL Report with the charge sheet.

Submissions of the Parties

The Counsel on behalf of State argued that the spot-testing kit used by the arresting team revealed that the seized material was heroin. On the contrary, the Counsel for Petitioner rebutted it by contending that such spot-testing kit results had no evidentiary value. He only pleaded for the adjudication of the point of law in question and did not seek for an interim bail.

Issue – Whether non-furnishing of the FSL report with the charge sheet, would account to an incomplete charge sheet and would that be a ground to grant a default bail to the accused?

Court’s Analysis and Judgement

The Court examined the impugned judgement passed by the High Court of Delhi and other cases on the same line. During the course of proceedings, it tagged the cases which involved similar question of law. It observed that though the matters were dealt with the same point of law, the interim bail has not been granted in every petition. It noted that this Court in the cases of Pabitra Narayan Pradhan Vs The State (NGT) of Delhi and Shankar @ Shiva Maheshwar Savai Vs The State of Gujarat had declined the pleas for granting the bail but however did not adjudicate on the aforementioned question of law. It further, emphasized that certain other factors like the quantity of the contraband articles being seized and period of incarceration were considered in the aforesaid orders while granting interim bail.

The Bench in view of diversity of rulings by different Benches of this Court on the question of interim bail and law, opined that a larger Bench would be appropriate to adjudicate the question as to whether failure on the part of the prosecution to include the FSL report pertaining to the seized contraband article(s) along with the charge sheet, within the time specified in Section 167(2) of the Code read with Section 36A of the NDPS Act, would entitle the accused to default bail or not. Thereby, the Bench placed the matter before the Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India by tagging other similar cases and abstained from making any observations on the merits of the case.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgement Reviewed by – Keerthi K

Click here to view the Judgement