Karnataka High Court
Bhuban Batria vs The State Of Karnataka on 16 June, 2025
Author: S Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:20535
CRL.P No. 4837 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4837 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
BHUBAN BATRIA
S/O NARASU BATRIYA
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
RESIDING AT, MUKUNDPUR
VILLAGE, HATIKAMBA
KALYANSINGPUR
RAYGADH DISTRICT
ORISSA STATE - 765 029
PRESENTLY, LODGED AT CENTRAL
PRISONS, BENGALURU.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI SARAVANA S, ADV., FOR
SMT. BHAVYA N.G, ADV.)
AND:
Digitally signed THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
by NANDINI M CONTONMENT RAILWAY POLICE
S STATION, BENGALURU CITY
Location: HIGH REPRESENTED BY S.P,
COURT OF PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT
KARNATAKA
COMPLEX, BANGALORE - 560 101.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL, HCGP)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439 CR.PC (FILED U/S 483 BNNS)
PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL PERTAINING TO
CRIME NO.40/2024 OF CANTONMENT RAILWAY POLICE STATION
AND IN SPL.CC NO.31/2025 ON THE FILE OF HONBLE XXXIV
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE
NDPS (CCH-35) BANGALORE, ALLEGED O/P/U/S 20(B)(II)C OF NDPS
ACT, 1985.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:20535
CRL.P No. 4837 of 2025
HC-KAR
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER
WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
ORAL ORDER
1. Accused no.1 in Crime No.40/2024 registered by
Bengaluru Cantonment Railway Police Station, Bengaluru, for
the offences punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of NDPS Act,
1985, is before this Court under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023,
seeking regular bail.
2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
3. FIR in Crime No.40/2024 was registered by Bengaluru
Cantonment Railway Police Station, Bengaluru, for the
aforesaid offence against the petitioner herein based on the
first information dated 26.09.2024 received from
Vasanthakumar.G.R. - Police Officer attached to Cantonment
Railway Police Station, Bengaluru. In the said case, petitioner
was arrested on 26.09.2024 and subsequently remanded to
judicial custody. After completing the investigation, charge
sheet has been filed against the petitioner for the aforesaid
offence. His bail application filed before the jurisdictional
NC: 2025:KHC:20535
HC-KAR
Sessions Court in Crl. Misc. No.723/2025 was rejected on
19.02.2025. Therefore, he is before this Court.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner having reiterated the
grounds urged in the petition, submits that there is no
compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act in the present case,
and therefore, seizure of contraband article gets vitiated. In the
support of the said argument, he has placed reliance on the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
VINAYSINH CHANDUBHA JADEJA VS STATE OF GUJARAT -
(2011)1 SCC 609. Petitioner who has no other criminal
antecedents is in custody from 26.09.2024. The police have
seized wet ganja in the present case, and therefore, it cannot
be said that the contraband article seized in the present case is
of commercial quantity since the seized contraband article has
not been separately weighed thereafter. Accordingly, the prays
to allow the petition.
5. Per contra, learned HCGP has opposed the petition. She
submits that seizure of contraband article is not from the
person of the petitioner, and therefore, there is no requirement
to comply with Section 50 of the NDPS Act in the present case.
NC: 2025:KHC:20535
HC-KAR
The seized contraband article has been weighed at the time of
inventory, and therefore, it is apparent that the seized
contraband article is of commercial quantity. Petitioner hails
from Odisha State and it would be difficult to secure his
presence in the event of he being enlarged on bail. She submits
that huge quantity of ganja is brought from Odisha State to
Karnataka and if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, it would
send a wrong message. Accordingly, she prays to dismiss the
petition.
6. Perusal of the averments found in the first information
would go to show that when the members of the special team
constituted for checking the passengers who arrive in train
from other States carrying contraband articles, were randomly
checking the passengers who had arrived in Prashanthi Express
from Odisha State, the petitioner who was carrying two bags
and was moving suspiciously was intercepted and on inquiry,
petitioner allegedly confessed that he was carrying ganja in the
bags which he had brought along with him. Thereafter, from
the bags which were brought by the petitioner, 9 Kgs. 780
grams and 14 Kgs. 450 grams of contraband article ganja was
NC: 2025:KHC:20535
HC-KAR
recovered and the total quantity of the contraband article
weighing 24 Kgs. 160 grams was subjected to panchanama and
a case was registered against the petitioner for the aforesaid
offences in Crime No.40/2024.
7. Since the contraband article ganja has been recovered
from the two bags which the petitioner had brought along with
him while traveling from Odisha to Bengaluru in Prashanthi
Express train and the seizure of contraband article or any other
article which was the subject matter of panchanama was not
from the person of the petitioner, as rightly contended by the
learned HCGP, there is no requirement of complying with the
mandatory provision of Section 50 of the NDPS Act in the
present case. It is only if the recovery of contraband article or
any other article which is the subject matter of panchanama
drawn, is from the person of the accused, then the requirement
of compliance of mandatory provision of Section 50 of the
NDPS Act becomes necessary. Therefore, the judgment in
Vijaysinh Chandubha Jadeja's case supra, on which reliance has
been placed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner cannot be
NC: 2025:KHC:20535
HC-KAR
made applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present
case.
8. As rightly contended by the learned HCGP, the seized
contraband article ganja was once again weighed at the time of
inventory and even during the inventory, weight of the seized
contraband is found to be 24 Kgs. 160 grams. The aforesaid
quantity is considered as commercial quantity in the relevant
notification issued under the provisions of the NDPS Act.
Therefore, the rigor under Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act,
becomes applicable as against the petitioner and unless the
petitioner is able to point out to this court that the twin
conditions arising out of Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act, are
not applicable to him, his bail application cannot be
entertained.
9. The Honb'le Supreme Court in the case of Narcotics
Control Bureau Vs Mohit Aggarwal - (2022)18 SCC 374, in
paragraph 19, has observed as under:
"19. In our opinion the narrow parameters of bail
available under Section 37 of the Act, have not been
satisfied in the facts of the instant case. At this stage, it is
not safe to conclude that the respondent has successfully
NC: 2025:KHC:20535
HC-KAR
demonstrated that there are reasonable grounds to
believe that he is not guilty of the offence alleged against
him, for him to have been admitted to bail. The length of
the period of his custody or the fact that the charge-sheet
has been filed and the trial has commenced are by
themselves not considerations that can be treated as
persuasive grounds for granting relief to the respondent
under Section 37 of the NDPS Act."
10. In addition to the same, learned HCGP has brought to the
notice of this Court that petitioner hails from Odisha State and
she has also submitted that huge quantity of contraband article
ganja is regularly brought to Bengaluru from Odisha State.
Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that petitioner's
prayer for grant of regular bail cannot be entertained at this
stage. Accordingly, petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY)
JUDGE
KK
