(Prayer: This Crl.P is filed under Section 439 (filed under Section 483 BNSS) Cr.P.C praying to enlarge the petitioner/Accused No.1 on Bail in Crime No.123/2025 registered in Hanur Police Station against him for the offence punishable under Section 20(B)(II)(B) of NDPS Act on the file of Principal District and Sessions Court, Chamarajanagar.)

Oral Order

1. This petition is filed by accused No.1 under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagrika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 praying to grant bail in Crime No.123/2025 of Hanur Police Station, registered for offences punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(B) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.

2. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent - State.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner would contend that, the petitioner was found carrying a bag in his hand and it is alleged to have contained ganja and it has been seized under mahazar. At the time of seizure of the said bag, sample has been taken and it is against the provisions of Section 52A of NDPS Act. As the petitioner was holding the said bag and seizing the said bag amounts to personal search of the petitioner and it has not been conducted in the presence of Gazetted Officer and there is a violation of Section 50 of NDPS Act. As the quantity seized is intermediate quantity, the rigor of Section 37 of NDPS Act is not applicable. The offence alleged against the petitioner is provided with a sentence of imprisonment which may extend to ten (10) years. The petitioner is in judicial custody since 09.06.2025 and as the charge sheet is filed, the petitioner is not required for further custodial interrogation. The petitioner is involved in another case as accused No.2 and the quantity of ganja seized in the said case is a small quantity and he has been granted bail in said case. The petitioner is having two minor children who are dependent on him.

4. On the points raised, the learned counsel for petitioner has placed reliance on the following decisions:

          1) SIMRANJIT SINGH vs. STATE OF PUNJAB reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 906.

          2) BOTHILAL vs. INTELLIGENCE OFFICER NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 498.

          3) NAMDI FRANCIS NWAZOR vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER reported in (1998) 8 SCC 534.

          4) PRABHAKAR TEWARI vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER reported in (2020) 11 SCC 648.

          5) JUDGMENT PASSED IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100624/2020 BY HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH ON 03.09.2020.

          On these grounds, he prayed to allow the petition.

5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent would contend that, the seized contraband has been sent to FSL for examination and the FSL report indicates that, the contraband seized is positive for ganja. The quantity seized from the petitioner is 4.725 kgs of ganja and it is intermediate quantity. The offence alleged against the petitioner is punishable with imprisonment which may extend to ten (10) years. The charge sheet materials show that, there is a prima-facie case against the petitioner for offences alleged against him. The petitioner is having criminal antecedents and involved in Crime No.97/2024 of Ramapura Police Station, registered for offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(A) of NDPS Act. The petitioner after grant of bail in the said case is now committed offence involving the intermediate quantity. In the earlier Crime No.97/2024, the quantity ganja seized is a small quantity. Considering the said aspect, if the petitioner is granted bail, he may involve in commission of similar offence. With these, she prayed for dismissal of the petition.

6. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for parties, the Court has perused the charge sheet and other materials placed on record.

7. As per charge sheet, the petitioner was found possessing 4.725 kgs of ganja contained in a bag and he was holding it. The said bag has been seized and sample has been drawn under mahazar. Learned counsel for petitioner would contend that, the drawing of sample at the time of seizure is not in accordance with the provisions of Section 52A of NDPS Act. On that point, he placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of SIMRANJIT SINGH supra and BOTHILAL supra. In both the cases, the challenge was made to the judgment of conviction of the appellant for offences under NDPS Act. Whether there is compliance of Section 52A of NDPS Act cannot be considered at the stage of considering bail application and the same can be considered at trial.

8. Learned counsel for petitioner placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of NAMDI FRANCIS NWAZOR supra would contend that, if a person is carrying hand bag or the like and the incriminating article is found therefrom, it is a search of the person of the accused requiring compliance with Section 50 of NDPS Act. Whether the seizure of the said bag which the petitioner was holding amounts to personal search or not and there is a violation of Section 50 of NDPS Act cannot be considered at the stage of considering bail application and the same can be considered at the trial. The petitioner is having criminal antecedents and he is accused No.2 in Crime No.97/2024 of Ramapura Police Station, registered for offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(A) of NDPS Act. The quantity in the said case is a small quantity. The petitioner has been granted bail in the said Crime No.97/2024. The petitioner who was on bail in the said case is now involved in the present case wherein quantity seized is intermediate quantity. The very fact that he again committing a similar offence that too of intermediate quantity itself indicates that, there are chances of he committing similar offence if he is granted bail. The offence alleged against the petitioner is punishable with imprisonment which may extend to ten (10) years.

9. The decision relied upon by the learned counsel for petitioner with regard to non-consideration of criminal antecedents while granting bail in the case of PRABHAKAR TEWARI supra cannot be considered in the cases involving trafficking in Narcotic Drug as the trafficking in Narcotic Drug affects the citizens moreso youngsters.

10. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of ANKUSH VIPAN KAPOOR vs. NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY reported in (2025) 5 SCC 155, has observed as under:

          "86. The ills of drug abuse seem to be shadowing the length and breadth of our country with the Central and every State Government fighting against the menace of substance abuse. The debilitating impact of drug trade and drug abuse is an immediate and serious concern for India. As the globe grapples with the menace of escalating Substance Use Disorders ("SUD") and an ever accessible drug market, the consequences leave a generational imprint on public health and even national security. Article 47 of the Constitution makes it a duty of the State to regard the raising of the level of nutrition and the standard of living of its people and the improvement of public health as among its primary duties and in particular the State shall endeavour to bring about prohibition of the consumption except for medicinal purposes of intoxicating drinks and of drugs which are injurious to health. The State has a responsibility to address the root causes of this predicament and develop effective intervention strategies to ensure that India's younger population, which is particularly vulnerable to substance abuse, is protected and saved from such menace. This is particularly because substance abuse is linked to social problems and can contribute to child maltreatment, spousal violence, and even property crime in a family."

11. Considering all the above aspects, the petitioner has not made out any grounds for grant of bail. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.