Karnataka High Court

Anjoom Rahman K vs Union Of India on 18 August, 2021

Author: M G Uma

                             1




  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2021

                         BEFORE

           THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G. UMA

         CRIMINAL PETITION No.3952 OF 2021


BETWEEN:

ANJOOM RAHMAN K
S/O MUSTAFA K
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
R/O # 28/B, 3RD MAIN, 18TH CROSS
BTM 2ND STAGE, NS PALYA
BENGALURU-560 076.
                                          ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI: K.S.VISHWANATH, ADVOCATE)


AND:

UNION OF INDIA
NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU
BENGALURU
(REPRESENTED BY LEARNED
SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR)
                                         ... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI: MADHUKAR DESHPANDE, CGSC)

      THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439
OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN
NCB.F.NO.48/1/13/2020/BZU OF NDPS ACT FOR THE OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 8(C) READ WITH SECTIONS 22C
AND 23C OF NDPS ACT WHICH IS PENDING IN
SPL.C.C.NO.165/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE XXXIII ADDL CITY
CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPL JUDGE AND NDPS
BENGALURU.
                                      2




     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT
OF ORDERS TODAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:


                                ORDER

The petitioner-accused is before this Court seeking

grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in

NCB.F.No.48/1/13/2020/BZU of Narcotics Control Bureau,

Bengaluru Zonal Unit, Kattigenahalli (for short 'NCB'),

pending in Spl.C.C.No.165 of 2021 on the file of the XXXIII

Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge

for NDPS, Bengaluru, registered for the offences

punishable under Section 8(c) read with Sections 22(c)

and 23(c) of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic

Substances Act (for short 'NDPS Act'), on the basis of the

secret information.

2. Heard Sri.K S Vishwanath, learned Counsel for

the petitioner and Sri.Madhukar Deshpande, learned

Central Government Standing Counsel for the respondent -

State. Perused the materials placed on record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted

that the petitioner is the sole accused. He has not

committed any offences as alleged. He has been falsely

implicated in the matter without any basis. He was

apprehended on 20.08.2020 and since then he is in judicial

custody.

4. Learned counsel submits that, it is the

contention of the prosecution that NCB received credible

information regarding a parcel lying in the foreign post

office, at Chamrajpet, Bengaluru, suspected to have

containing MDMA. Accordingly, the NCB police visited the

post office and in the presence of two panchas, inspected

the parcel lying there, unclaimed. The parcel was found to

be booked from Deutsche post addressed to one Amitha

Radhakrishnan, 28/B, (F-3), 5th Main, 8th Cross, BTM 2nd

stage, NS playa, Karnataka, Bengaluru - 560076, India.

On enquiry about the details of the sender, it was revealed

by the post master that the same was booked from

Frankfurt, Germany. When the parcel was opened,

polythene covers were found. There were several layers of

polythene covers, wherein, grey colour rectangular tablets

weighing 69 grams in one pouch and light brown colour

oval shaped tablets weighing 90 grams in another pouch

were found. The appearance and texture of the substance

was that of MDMA. The gross weight of the entire

contraband was 159 grams. The samples were drawn and

the contraband was seized under the seizure mahazar.

5. Learned counsel submitted that the name of

the petitioner is nowhere mentioned in the parcel, nor he

gone to the post office to collect the same, nor the parcel

was addressed to the petitioner. It is the specific

contention of the prosecution that the parcel was

addressed to one Amitha Radhakrishnan. But she is not

arrayed as accused in the present case. On the basis of

the address found on the parcel, the Investigating Officer

visited the flat, searched the same, wherein, the petitioner

was residing. But no contraband was found in the said

flat. The petitioner was subjected to interrogation. His

bank details were collected. Similarly, the statement of

Amitha Radhakrishnan was also recorded. After

completing the investigation, the charge sheet is filed

against the present petitioner alone for the above said

offences.

6. Learned counsel submitted that the parcel in

question was not in the name of the petitioner. No

incriminating materials were recovered either from the

person or from the house, where the petitioner was

residing. There is absolutely no connecting link between

the petitioner and the offence in question. It is the

contention of the prosecution that the petitioner had

purchased the contraband by paying the consideration in

BIT coin through VICKR app. But nothing has been placed

before the Court to substantiate any of these contentions.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further

submitted that the petitioner and Amitha Radhakrishnan,

who is the addressee in the so-called parcel were residing

together for sometime. The prosecution produced the bank

account statements of both petitioner and Amitha

Radhakrishnan. But there is not even a single transaction

which can be suspected to be connected to deal with the

contraband. There is no abnormal financial transaction to

contend that the petitioner was dealing with contraband by

purchasing the same from foreign country and distributing

it in India. Except the so-called voluntary statement of the

petitioner said to have been recorded under Section 67 of

the NDPS Act, there are no incriminating materials to

suspect the role of the present petitioner in commission of

the offences. Under such circumstances, his detention in

custody would amount to pre-trial punishment. The

prosecution failed to place even prima facie materials

against the petitioner. The petitioner is a student aged 23

years, who is having permanent place of residence in the

address mentioned in the petition. He is not having any

criminal antecedents and is ready and willing to abide by

any of the conditions that would be imposed by this Court.

Hence, he prays to allow the petition.

8. Per contra, learned Central Government

Standing Counsel opposing the petition submitted that a

credible information was received regarding the unclaimed

parcel in the foreign post office and therefore, NCB had

mounted surveillance about the identity of the person who

may come to collect the parcel. The petitioner after

suspecting about the surveillance had not gone to the post

office to collect the parcel, even though, it was he who

booked the parcel in the name of Amitha Radhakrishnan.

Admittedly, the petitioner and Amitha Radhakrishnan were

residing together in live-in relationship. Taking advantage

of the situation, the petitioner used to book the parcels in

her name. When the parcel was lying unclaimed, the same

was seized under the seizure mahazar, after following the

procedures as contemplated under the Act. When the

house mentioned in the address was searched, the

petitioner was found in occupation of the same. Therefore,

his statements were recorded. Only after finding the link

between the contraband and the petitioner, he was taken

to custody.

9. During investigation, it was found that the

petitioner was using VICKR app for placing orders and

getting the consignment. This app is specially designed to

carry on the dealings in contraband and such other

substance as it will provide anonymity of both consigner

and the consignee and the details of the transactions. The

app is so designed that the messages will get deleted once

the message is read. The petitioner revealed the

information that he used to consign the contraband for the

purpose of distributing the same to the students in Jain,

CMS and other colleges. The money that were collected

from sale of contraband is credited to his account and also

to the account of his girlfriend i.e., Amitha Radhakrishnan.

Small doses of contraband were being sold to the students

for their consumption or for further distribution and the

petitioner used to get commission for the same. The

statement of the petitioner and that of Amitha

Radhakrishnan would substantiate this fact. It is also found

that similar parcel was intercepted on earlier occasion

which was also addressed to Amitha Radhakrishnan in the

same address and it was containing ganja weighing 25

grams, as the same is evident from the letter dated

09.11.2020 addressed by the Deputy Commissioner of City

Customs, PAD, Bengaluru to the Investigating Officer.

10. Learned CGSC further submitted that the

account statements relating to the bank accounts of the

petitioner and Amitha Radhakrishnan in Kotak Mahindra

Bank, Karur Vyasa Bank and Kerala Grameena Bank,

disclose that they were dealing in lakhs of rupees which is

the proceeds of the secret transaction. The petitioner was

in conscious possession of the contraband which he booked

in the name of Amitha Radhakrishnan. All these facts and

circumstances disclose that the petitioner is in the habit of

consigning the contraband through VICKR app and getting

the parcel in the name of Amitha Radhakrishnan with

whom he was residing, by paying the consideration

through crypto currency. During investigation, it was also

found that the petitioner had thrown his mobile in the

sewage and purchased a new phone to conceal his bad

deals. The International Mobile Equipment Identity (IMEI)

details collected by the Investigating Officer discloses that

since 18.08.2020, the petitioner has changed his mobile

and therefore, IMEI number also changed. This shows the

guilty mind of the petitioner and prima facie shows his

intention to cause disappearance of the evidence. At this

stage, prima facie materials are placed before the Court

which are sufficient to deny bail to the petitioner.

11. The learned CGSC further submitted that

unless, the twin conditions specified under Section 37 of

the NDPS Act are satisfied, the petitioner is not entitled for

bail. He relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in

Union of India Vs Ram Samujh and another1, State of

Kerala and Others Vs Rajesh and Others2 and the

(1999) 9 SCC 429

(2020) 12 SCC 122

judgment of High Court of Punjab and Haryana in

Lakhwinder Singh Vs Union of India and Others3 and

contended that the twin requirements provided under

Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act is required to be

complied with, if the accused is to be enlarged on bail.

The statement of objects and reasons for introducing the

bill for amendment of NDPS Act and the subsequent

amendment, is to be borne in mind, while considering the

bail applications filed by the accused for the offences

punishable under Sections 19, 24, 27-A and for the

offences involving commercial quantity of the contraband.

Learned counsel submits that since commercial quantity of

MDMA was recovered in the present case and strong prima

facie materials are placed before the Court to prove the

involvement of the petitioner, he is not entitled for grant of

bail. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the petition.

12. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner

submitted that no materials are placed before the Court to

2011 SCC Online P & H 6671

show that the petitioner had discarded his old phone and

purchased the new one. Even though the bank statements

were produced, there is nothing abnormal in the

transactions and there is nothing to suggest that the

petitioner was dealing with BIT coin. If at all the petitioner

was transacting with VICKR app, the same could have

been retrieved by the Investigating Officer. Not even a

single student either from Jain or CMS or any other college

is enquired by the Investigating Officer. Procuring the

contraband and selling the same is not even probablised.

Even at the time of seizure of the contraband, Amitha

Radhakrishnan was staying in the house where the

petitioner was staying. She has not left to Kerala, as

contended by the prosecution. Even though it is alleged

that financial investigation was undertaken, no suspected

transactions could be highlighted.

13. Learned counsel placed his reliance in the

decision of High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Ankush

Kumar @ sonu Vs State of Punjab4, the judgment of

Hon'ble Apex Court in Sujit Tiwari Vs State of Gujarat

and another5 and the judgment of co-ordinate Bench of

this Court in J Kannan Vs The Union of India6, to

contend that granting of bail is to be considered in light of

the precious fundamental right of the accused protected

under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is not the

stage to determine the materials on record to convict the

petitioner-accused. When the presence of the petitioner in

custody is not required for any purpose, denial of his right

to be enlarged on bail would amount to infringement of his

right to life and liberty. He further submitted that the

facts and circumstances highlighted above would indicate

that there is nothing on record even to probabalise the

involvement of the present petitioner in commission of the

offences. Under such circumstances, even if the twin

conditions mentioned under Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS

Act is to be applied, a finding could be recorded that there

LAWS (P&H) 2018 8 143

(2020) 13 SCC 447

Crl.P.No.6059/2019 DD 12.11.2019

are no reasonable grounds for believing that he is guilty of

such offences and since the petitioner is not having any

criminal antecedents, it could be opined that there is no

likelihood of he committing any offence, while on bail.

Therefore, it is his contention that the petitioner is entitled

to be enlarged on bail.

14. In view of the rival contentions urged by the

learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would

arise for my consideration is:

"Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.?"

My answer to the above point is in 'Affirmative' for

the following:

REASONS

15. It is the contention of the prosecution that a

credible information was received about a parcel lying in

the foreign post office, Chamrajpet, Bengaluru, suspected

to have containing MDMA and when the parcel was

opened, it contained in all 159 grams of MDMA, which is a

commercial quantity. Samples were drawn and the bulk

contraband was seized. It is stated that when the address

of the consignee as mentioned in the parcel was verified, it

was found that the petitioner was in occupation of the said

premises. A search was held in the said premises. The

statement of the petitioner was recorded under Section 67

of the NDPS Act. It is also found that the consignee

Amitha Radhakrishnan was also residing in the said

premises along with the petitioner and her statement was

also recorded. On the basis of the statements of the

petitioner and Amitha Radhakrishnan, their bank details

were verified, wherein, it is found that the petitioner is

dealing with not only his bank accounts, but also the bank

accounts of Amitha Radhakrishnan, for depositing the

proceeds earned from the sale of narcotic drugs. As per

the letter of Deputy Commissioner of City Customs, PAD,

Bengaluru, similar parcel was found unclaimed in the

foreign post office addressed to Amitha Radhakrishnan and

it was found that the said parcel was containing 25 grams

of ganja and the same was seized on 23.07.2020. It was

also found that the petitioner having guilty mind had

thrown his phone in the sewage, only with an intention to

cause disappearance of the evidence of commission of

offences and purchased a new phone. IMEI details relating

to the mobile phone used by the petitioner discloses this

fact. From all these materials on record, it is the

contention of the prosecution that the petitioner being the

accused used to book consignment containing the

contraband from foreign countries through VICKR app and

used to pay the consideration through BIT coin. The

petitioner used to sell small quantities of the pills to the

students in various colleges and used to earn huge

amount, which used to be deposited in his bank account

and also the bank account of Amitha Radhakrishnan.

16. In the light of the contentions of the

prosecution, I have considered the materials that are

placed before the Court. Admittedly, the consignment was

addressed to Amitha Radhakrishnan and not to the

petitioner. Even the earlier parcel referred to by the

prosecution which was said to have contained 25 grams of

ganja, was also addressed to Amitha Radhakrishnan. It is

stated that Amitha Radhakrishnan and the petitioner were

in live-in relationship residing in the address mentioned in

the parcel. It is stated that Amitha Radhakrishnan has

given a statement that she was not aware of the bad deals

that are being held by the petitioner, but, however, she

says that it must be the petitioner who used to book the

consignment in her name and used to manage her bank

accounts. In support of the same, the prosecution is

relying on two bank challans found in the house, where the

petitioner was residing, according to which, on 24.01.2017

and on 25.01.2017, a sum of Rs.36,500/- and Rs.49,500/-

respectively credited in Karur Vysya Bank, where Amitha

Radhakrishnan was having the account. The statements of

the bank accounts relating to the petitioner and Amitha

Radhakrishnan were collected, wherein, it is found that

various amounts ranging from Rs.1,500/- to Rs.10,000/-

were being deposited regularly to the account. The total

balance in the credit of the account in Kotak Mahindra

Bank is ranging from Rs.1,45,000/- to Rs.1,60,000/-. It is

pertinent to note that even though, it is contended that the

petitioner used to book the consignment through VICKR

app from foreign countries and used to pay the

consideration through BIT coin, the same is on the basis of

the statements of the petitioner and Amitha

Radhakrishnan, under Section 67 of the NDPS Act. Even

though, it is contended that the petitioner has thrown his

mobile phone in sewage and using a new handset, the

same is only probabalised by producing IMEI details to

show the change in the said numbers. But, admittedly, no

other materials are available as of now to substantiate the

same.

17. In Ankush Kumar @ Sonu (supra), the High

Court of Punjab and Haryana, considered the requirement

of Section 37(1)(b) of NDPS Act, and under the facts and

circumstance of the case, felt it proper to enlarge the

accused on bail, after recording its prima facie satisfaction

that the petitioner is not involved in the case and that he

was also implicated in a false case earlier. It was also

opined that there is no likelihood of the accused

committing the offence while on bail and accordingly, the

accused was enlarged on bail. However, the Court

categorically stated that it is not considering the

constitutional validity of Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act

and its discussion is only restricted to the bail application

filed by the accused in light of the fundamental right

guaranteed to any person under Article 21 of the

Constitution of India.

18. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Sujith Tiwari

(supra) considered the ambit and application of Section 37

of NDPS Act, formed an opinion that since the prosecution

is relying on few whatsapp messages and statement of the

accused recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, there

is a very little evidence available against the accused and

therefore, there is reasonable possibility that he may be

acquitted. It was also felt that there is no possibility of re-

committing any offence while on bail and under such

circumstances, enlarged the accused on bail subject to

stringent conditions, such as, furnishing the bail bond with

two sureties, deposit of his passport, restrictions on his

visit to other places other than Porbandar and Kolkata,

providing his cell phone number to the police authorities

and not to change the cell number without permission from

the Trial Court, marking the attendance on daily basis in

the police station, condition to join the investigation as and

when called for, not to hamper or trying to interfere in the

investigation, not to delay the trial etc., It is also held that

if the accused violates any of these conditions, the NCB

will be entitled to seek cancellation of bail.

19. In J Kannan (supra) the co-ordinate Bench of

this Court, relying on the decision in Ankush Kumar @

Sony (supra) enlarged the accused on bail.

20. In Ram Samujh (supra), the Hon'ble Apex

Court considered the requirement of Section 37(1)(b) of

the NDPS Act, in light of the legislative intent to achieve

the object mentioned in the statement of objects and

reasons for introducing the bill for amendment and held in

paras 5 to 8 as under:

"5. The jurisdiction of the Court to grant bail is circumscribed by the provision of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. It can be granted in a case where there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. It is the mandate of the legislature which is required to be followed. At this juncture a reference to Section 37 of the Act is apposite. That provision makes the offences under the Act cognizable and non-bailable. It reads thus:

"37. Offences to be cognizable and non- bailable:

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: (2 of 1974)

(a) every offence punishable under this Act shall be cognizable;

(b) no person accused of an offence punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless;

(i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and

(ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.

(2) the limitations on granting of bail specified in clause (b) of sub- section (1) are in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of

1974), or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail"

6. The aforesaid Section is incorporated to achieve the object as mentioned in the Statements of Objects and Reasons for introducing the Bill No.125/ 1988 thus:

"Even though the major offences are non-bailable by virtue of the level of punishment, on technical grounds, drug offenders were being released on bail. In the light of certain difficulties faced in the enforcement of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 the need to amend the law to further strengthen it, has been felt."

7. It is to be borne in mind that the aforesaid legislative mandate is required to be adhered to and followed. It should be borne in mind that in a murder case, the accused commits murder of one or two persons, while those persons who are dealing in narcotic drugs are instrumental in causing death or in inflicting death blow to a number of innocent young victims, who are vulnerable: it causes

deleterious effects and a deadly impact on the society; they are a hazard to the society; even if they are released temporarily, in all probability, they would continue their nefarious activities of trafficking and/or dealing in intoxicants clandestinely. Reason may be large stake and illegal profit involved. This Court, dealing with the contention with regard to punishment under the NDPS Act, has succinctly observed about the adverse effect of such activities in Durand Didien v. Chief Secretary. Union Territory of Goa as under:

"24. With deep concern, we may point out that the organised activities of the underworld and the clandestine smuggling of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances into this country and illegal trafficking in such drugs and substances have led to drug addiction among a sizeable section of the public, particularly the adolescents and students of both sexes and the menace has assumed serious and alarming proportion in the recent years. Therefore, in order to effectively control and eradicate this proliferating and booming devastating menace, causing deleterious

effects and deadly impact on the society as a whole, the Parliament in its wisdom, has made effective provisions by introducing this Act 81 of 1985 specifying mandatory minimum imprisonment and fine,"

8. To check the menace of dangerous drugs flooding the market, the Parliament has provided that the person accused of offences under the NDPS Act should not be released on bail during trial unless the mandatory conditions provided in Section 37, namely,

(i) there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such offence; and

(ii) that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail are satisfied. The High Court has not given any justifiable reason for not abiding by the aforesaid mandate while ordering the release of the respondent-accused on bail. Instead of attempting to take a holistic view of the harmful socio-economic consequences and health hazards which would accompany trafficking illegally in the dangerous drugs,

the Court should implement the law in the spirit with which the Parliament, after due deliberation, has amended."

21. In State of Kerala (supra), the Hon'ble Apex

Court once again considered the requirements of Section

37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act, while dealing with bail

application filed by the accused and referred to its earlier

decision in Ram Samujh (supra) and held that satisfaction

of twin requirements under Section 37(1)(b) is sine-qua-

non for grant of bail. It is appropriate to extract paras 19

and 20 of the said judgment, which reads as under:

19. The scheme of Section 37 reveals that the exercise of power to grant bail is not only subject to the limitations contained under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C, but is also subject to the limitation placed by Section 37 which commences with non-obstante clause. The operative part of the said section is in the negative form prescribing the enlargement of bail to any person accused of commission of an offence under the Act, unless twin conditions are

satisfied. The first condition is that the prosecution must be given an opportunity to oppose the application; and the second, is that the Court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence. If either of these two conditions is not satisfied, the ban for granting bail operates.

20. The expression "reasonable grounds"

means something more than prima facie grounds. It contemplates substantial probable causes for believing that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence. The reasonable belief contemplated in the provision requires existence of such facts and circumstances as are sufficient in themselves to justify satisfaction that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence. In the case on hand, the High Court seems to have completely overlooked the underlying object of Section 37 that in addition to the limitations provided under Cr.P.C, or any other law for the time being in force, regulating the grant of bail, its liberal approach in the matter of bail under the NDPS Act is indeed uncalled for."

22. In Lakhwinder Singh (supra), the Division

Bench of High Court of Punjab and Haryana, again placed

its reliance on Ram Samujh (supra) and held that Section

37 of the NDPS Act cannot be held as unconstitutional.

23. From these various verdicts of the Hon'ble

Apex Court and the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, it is

clear that the twin requirements under Section 37(1)(b) of

the NDPS Act, i.e., (i) there are reasonable grounds for

believing that the accused is not guilty of such offence and

that (ii) he is not likely to commit any offence while on

bail, are to be satisfied while deciding the bail application

filed by such accused.

24. In the present case, the prosecition has placed

sufficient materials to show that the commercial quantity

of contraband i.e., MDMS was seized from the parcel that

was lying in the foreign post office. The prosecution is

relying on the statements of the petitioner and Amitha

Radhakrishnan to establish the link between the petitioner

and the offence in question. Even though, prima facie it is

shown that the petitioner and Amitha Radhakrishnan were

residing together in the address mentioned in the parcel,

its contention that (i) the bank challans in question

evidence the fact for having deposited the amount by the

petitioner in the account of Amitha Radhakrishnan or (ii)

the petitioner was maintaining the said accounts for the

purpose of depositing the proceeds of sale of the

contraband or (iii) the petitioner had discarded his earlier

mobile phone with an intention to cause disappearance of

the evidence or (iv) the petitioner is in the habit of booking

the consignment containing the contraband from foreign

countries through VICKR app and used to pay the price by

BIT coin, are to be substantiated by the prosecution either

by additional documents or by examining the charge sheet

witnesses. But as of now, the materials that are placed

before the Court are not sufficient to convict the petitioner

or to hold him guilty. It is not the contention of the

prosecution that the petitioner is having any criminal

antecedents. Therefore, it can be held at this stage that he

is not likely to commit any offence, if he is enlarged on

bail.

25. This Court is conscious of the fact that, it is not

the stage either to declare the petitioner as innocent or

guilty for the offences as alleged. At the initial stage of

considering the bail application filed by the petitioner,

prima facie satisfaction about the materials placed on

record is to be looked into and on consideration of such

materials, in light of the rival contentions, I am of the

opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing

that the petitioner is not guilty of such offences and that

he is not likely to commit any offence, while on bail. When

these twin conditions as under Section 37(1)(b) of the

NDPS Act are satisfied, I do not find any reason to reject

the prayer made by the petitioner. Moreover, the

investigation is already completed and the charge sheet is

filed. The petitioner is in judicial custody since 20.08.2020.

Admittedly, he is not having any criminal antecedents.

Therefore, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled

to be enlarged on bail subject to conditions, which will take

care of the apprehension expressed by the learned CGSC

that the petitioner may abscond, he may commit similar

offences or may tamper or threaten the prosecution

witnesses.

26. Accordingly, I answer the above point in

'Affirmative' and proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

The petition is allowed.

The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in

NCB.F.No.48/1/13/2020/BZU of Narcotics Control Bureau,

Bengaluru Zonal Unit, Kattigenahalli, pending in

Spl.C.C.No.165 of 2021 on the file of the XXXIII Additional

City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for NDPS,

Bengaluru, on obtaining the bond in a sum of

Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) with two sureties

for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional

Court, subject to the following conditions:

a). The petitioner shall not commit similar offences.

b). The petitioner shall not threaten or tamper with the prosecution witnesses.

c). The petitioner shall appear before the Investigation Officer or the Court as and when required.

d). The petitioner shall mark his attendance before NCB, Bengaluru, once in 15 days i.e., on every 1st and 3rd Sunday between 10.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. till conclusion of the trial.