| |
CDJ 2026 Kar HC 181
|
| Case No : Criminal Petition No. 105180 Of 2025 (439(CR.PC)/483(BNSS)) |
| Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. SRISHANANDA |
| Parties : Irvin Devid Isrel Chippadi Versus The State Of Karnataka (Hubballi Dharwad City Cen Crime Police Station), Rep. by State Public Prosecutor, Dharwad |
| Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: R.H. Angadi, Advocate. For the Respondent: P.N. Hatti, HCGP. |
| Date of Judgment : 17-02-2026 |
| Head Note :- |
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 16, 20(b)(ii)(B) -
Comparative Citation:
2026 KHC-D 2384,
|
| Summary :- |
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules Mentioned:
- Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.)
- Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023
- Sections 16, 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act)
- Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
2. Catch Words:
- Bail
- NDPS Act
- Intermediary quantity
- Parity
- Cognizance
- Seizure
- Criminal antecedent
- Tampering with witnesses
3. Summary:
The petitioner, accused No. 2 in a case under the NDPS Act, sought bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. The prosecution alleged recovery of 5.14 grams of cocaine and 2.034 kg of ganja from the accused persons. The petitioner argued that cocaine was not seized from his custody, he had no criminal antecedents, and the co-accused had already been granted bail. The prosecution opposed bail, citing the petitioner’s involvement in drug peddling and seizure of materials from his rented house. The Court noted that the seized quantities were intermediary, making Section 37 of the NDPS Act inapplicable. Considering parity with the co-accused’s bail, the Court allowed the petition with stringent conditions.
4. Conclusion:
Petition Allowed |
| Judgment :- |
|
(Prayer: This Criminal Petition is filed u/S. 439 of Cr.P.C. (u/S.483 of BNSS, 2023) seeking to enlarge the present petitioner, who is arrayed as Accused No.2 on Regular Bail in connection with Hubballi Dharwad City CEN P.S. Crime No. 102/2025, for the alleged offences p/u/Sec. 16, 20(B)(II)(B) of NDPS Act 1985 pending before the Prl. District and Sessions Court Dharwad in Spl. NDPS C.C. No.22/2025, by allowing this petition, in the interest of justice.)
Oral Order
V. Srishananda, J.
1. Heard Sri. R. H. Angadi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. P. N. Hatti, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent - State.
2. Accused No.2 in Special NDPS C.C. No.22/2025 is the petitioner charged with the offences punishable under Sections 16, 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (For short, 'NDPS').
3. As per the charge sheet material, the Investigation Agency was able to recover 5.14 grams of cocaine and 2.034 kilo of ganja from the custody of accused persons.
4. The learned Special Judge after receipt of the charge sheet, took cognizance of the aforesaid offences and proceeded with the matter.
5. In the meantime, the bail request of the petitioner was turned down by the learned Special Judge. Thereafter, the petitioner is before this Court.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the bail petition would contend that there is no seizure of the cocaine from the custody of the present petitioner.
6.1. He would further contend that the petitioner is prepared to abide by any of the conditions that would be imposed by this Court and did not possess any criminal antecedent and therefore, sought for grant of bail.
6.2. He would also contend that the accused No.1 has been granted bail, as such the present petitioner is also entitled for bail.
7. Learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent- State opposes the grant of bail by contending that though the petitioner is a student of SDM Nursing College, as per his voluntary statement, he is a drug peddler.
7.1. He would further contend that in the guise of a student, he was more interested in supplying the drugs to the needy. Mobile telephone of the present petitioner has been seized from his house.
7.2. He would further contend that the petitioner has taken a rented house and necessary materials have been seized from the said rented house.
7.3. He would also contend that the grant of bail to the co-accused is not available to the present petitioner in view of seizure of the contraband materials and the mobile telephone from the house of the present petitioner and sought for dismissal of the petition.
8. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously.
9. On such perusal of the material on record, it is noted that the seized NDPS materials namely cocaine and ganja are intermediary in quantity.
10. Therefore, the embargo under Section 37 of the NDPS Act is not applicable to the case on hand.
11. Further, since the co-accused has been granted bail, who is the one who has supplied the contraband material to the present petitioner, as per the case of the prosecution alone, on the ground of parity, petition needs to be allowed.
12. Accordingly, the following:
ORDER
(i) The petition is allowed.
(ii) Petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail on executing a bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000 with two sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.
(iii) Petitioner shall attend the Court regularly.
(iv) Petitioner shall not tamper the prosecution witnesses in any manner.
(v) Petitioner shall mark his attendance before the Investigation Officer on every third Sunday of the month between 10 a.m. to 02.00 p.m., till conclusion of the trial.
(vi) Petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of Dharwad without prior permission. Violation of any one of these conditions would entitle the prosecution to seek for cancellation of the bail.
|
| |
