Karnataka High Court
Pranav S Katagihallimath vs State By on 15 October, 2025
Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:40764
CRL.P No. 11787 of 2025
C/W CRL.P No. 11812 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL PETITION No. 11787 OF 2025 (439(Cr.PC) /
483(BNSS))
C/W
CRIMINAL PETITION No. 11812 OF 2025
IN CRL.P No. 11787/2025
BETWEEN:
1. AYAPPA SARATHI P
S/O PARTHASARATHI
AGED 30 YEARS,
No.69, 3RD CROSS, BASAVESHWARANAGAR
WATER TANK ROAD
OPP. TO AUTOMATIC CAR WASH
BENGALURU NORTH - 560 079.
...PETITIONER
Digitally signed by
LAKSHMINARAYANA (BY SRI MOHAN KUMAR B M, ADVOCATE)
MURTHY RAJASHRI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF AND:
KARNATAKA
1. STATE BY INTELLIGENCE OFFICER
NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU
BANGALORE ZONAL UNIT
BENGALURU
REP. BY SPECIAL PP
HIGH COURT KARNATAKA
BANGALORE - 01.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI MADHUKAR M DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:40764
CRL.P No. 11787 of 2025
C/W CRL.P No. 11812 of 2025
HC-KAR
THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 Cr.PC (FILED
U/S 483 BNSS) PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS PETITION AND
GRANT BAIL TO THE PETITIONER WHO ARE ARRAYED AS
ACCUSED NOo01 IN NCB CRIME No.48/1/20/2025/BZU
REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT NARCOTICS CONTROL
BUREAU FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE PUNISHABLE SECTIONS
8(c), 22(c), 23(c), 27, 27A, 28 AND 29 OF THE NARCOTIC
DRUGS AND PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES ACT, 1985, WHICH
IS PRESENTLY PENDING ON THE FILE OF XXXIII ADDITIONAL
CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE FOR
NDPS CASES AT BENGALURU AND ETC.,
IN CRL.P No. 11812/2025
BETWEEN:
1. PRANAV S KATAGIHALLIMATH
S/O SOMASHEKHAR KATAGIHALLIMATH
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
R/O 123, 16TH CROSS,12TH MAIN
1ST BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR
BENGALURU NORTH - 560 010.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI RAGHU R, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE BY INTELLIGENCE OFFICER
NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU
BANGLAORE ZONAL UNIT
FULL ADDRESS No.7/1
PRIYANK VILLAS, KATTIGENAHALLI
BENGALURU MAIN ROAD
YELAHANKA BANGALORE - 560 064
REP BY SPL. PP, HIGH COURT
BENGALURU.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI MAHDUKAR M DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE)
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:40764
CRL.P No. 11787 of 2025
C/W CRL.P No. 11812 of 2025
HC-KAR
THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 Cr.PC (FILED
U/S 483 BNNS) PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS PETITION AND
GRANT BAIL TO THE PETITIONER WHO ARE ARRAYED AS
ACCUSED No.2 IN NCB CRIME No.48/1/20/2025/BZU
REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT NARCOTICS CONTORL
BUREAU FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTION 8(c), 22(c), 23(c), 27, 28A, 28 AND 29 OF THE
NARCOTIC DRUGS AND PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES ACT,
1985, WHICH IS PRESENTLY PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE
XXXIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL
JUDGE FOR NDPS CASES AT BENGALURU AND ETC.,
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
ORAL ORDER
1. Crl.P. 11787/2025 is filed by accused No. 1 and
Crl.P. No. 11812/2025 is filed accused No. 2. Both the
petitions are filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, (hereinafter referred to as
`BNSS') read with Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to
as the `NDPS Act') seeking bail in NCB Crime No.
48/1/20/2025/BZU registered by the respondent - Narcotic
NC: 2025:KHC:40764
HC-KAR
Control Bureau for offence punishable under Sections 8(c),
22(c), 23(c), 27, 27-A, 28 and 29 of NDPS Act.
2. Case of the prosecution in brief is as under:
On 31.05.2025 at 07.30 pm credible information was
received that one shipment from Germany with tracking
No. RQ137229372DE destined to Bengaluru was suspected
to contain LSD. Basing on the credible information and as
per the directions of higher officer, the complainant
proceeded to Foreign Post Office, Chamarajpet on
02.06.2025 and seized 2.39 gms of LSD total 177 blotter
papers from shipment bearing No. RQ137229372DE at
Foreign Post Office, 5th Main, 5th Cross, Chamarajpet,
Bengaluru. On seeing the said parcel it was found to have
been booked from Germany and destined to the address
of accused No. 2 with contact number. In follow up action,
controlled delivery was effected on 06.06.2025 and
dummy parcel was received by both the accused persons.
Petitioners - accused Nos. 1 and 2 were apprehended on
07.06.2025 and prosecuted in the case for committing
NC: 2025:KHC:40764
HC-KAR
offences under Sections 8(c), 22(c), 23(c), 27, 27A, 28
and 29 of NDPS Act. Petitioners - accused Nos. 1 and 2
were produced before the jurisdictional Court and they are
in judicial custody. Petitioners - accused Nos. 1 and 2 filed
Crl.Misc. No. 5266/2025 before the XXXIII Additional City
Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge (NDPS),
Bengaluru, seeking grant of bail and the same came to be
rejected by order dated 23.07.2025. Therefore, petitioners
- accused Nos. 1 and 2 have approached this Court
seeking grant of bail.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
4. Learned counsel for petitioners - accused Nos.
1 and 2 would contend that there is no audio/video
recording at the time of drawing mahazar in compliance of
provisions of Section 105 of BNSS. The parcel was booked
in the name of accused No.2 and there is no role of
accused No. 1. Entire case of the prosecution is based on
the voluntary statement of accused Nos.1 and 2 and it is
NC: 2025:KHC:40764
HC-KAR
not admissible under the provisions of Bharatiya Sakshi
Adhiniyama. Petitioners - accused Nos. 1 and 2 have no
criminal antecedents. Transfer of amount from the account
of accused No.1 to the account of accused No. 2 is friendly
transaction between them and they do not pertain to the
alleged transaction. Accused persons have not used or
secured LSD earlier. Any person can book parcel in the
name of any person/address. The accused persons are not
in conscious possession of the seized contraband. The
accused persons were taken to Police custody for 3 days
and there is no recovery from them. Learned counsel for
petitioners - accused Nos. 1 and 2 placed reliance on the
following decisions:
A. Adam Pasha Vs. Union of India, 2021 SCC Online Kar
16228
B. Ibrahim Madannur Vs. State of Karnataka by E and N
Crime Police Station, 2021 SCC Online Kar 12553
C. Bharath Chaudhary Vs. Union of India, 2021 (20)
SCC 50
NC: 2025:KHC:40764
HC-KAR
D. Sangi Reddy @ Tilak Sai Vs. Union of India, 2024
SCC Online Kar 3667
5. Learned counsel for respondent would contend
that on the basis of credible information the parcel was
opened in the Foreign Post Office and 177 blotter papers
of LSD were found and they were seized under mahazar.
Said parcel was in the name of accused No. 2. Accused
No. 1 had booked the said parcel in the name of accused
No.2 by giving his mobile number. At the time of drawing
mahazar the process was video recorded and photographs
have been taken. The order of Director General, NCB, has
been obtained as required under Section 50-A of NDPS Act
to undertake controlled delivery operation with respect to
parcel having tracking No. RQ137229372DE. Pursuant to
the said order dummy parcel was delivered to the
addressee and at the time of delivery of the dummy parcel
accused Nos. 1 and 2 were in the address and they
received the dummy parcel. Said aspect itself indicates
that accused persons were in conspicuous possession of
NC: 2025:KHC:40764
HC-KAR
the contra band seized containing 177 blotter papers of
LSD and committed the alleged offences. The photographs
of consignment contain barcode with tracking No.
RQ137229372DE and the said barcode number is also
contained in the e-mail received by the accused persons.
Said aspect itself indicates that the accused persons had
booked the parcel. The voluntary statement of accused
No. 1 indicates the details of consignment booked by
them. Seized LSD blotter papers were sent for FSL
examination and FSL report indicate that weight of said
blotter papers was 2.4081 gms and LSD had been
detected in them. There was qualitative and quantitative
examination of the seized contra band. Investigation is still
in progress. The offence alleged against the petitioners -
accused Nos. 1 and 2 is punishable with imprisonment
which may extend to 20 years. Learned counsel for
respondent placed reliance on the following decisions:
I. Vaibhav Yadav Vs. Narcotics Control Bureau, 2025
SCC Online Del 2565
NC: 2025:KHC:40764
HC-KAR
II. Union of India through Narcotics Control Bureau,
Lucknow Vs. Md. Nawaz Khan, 2021 (10) SCC 100
III. State of Kerala and others Vs. Rajesh and others,
2020 (12) SCC 122.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties,
this Court has perused the FIR, complaint and other
materials placed on record.
7. The parcel which was found in the Foreign Post
Office was in the name of accused No. 2. The address
mentioned on the parcel is that of accused No. 2. The
phone number mentioned on the said parcel is that of
accused No. 1. The barcode mentioned in the parcel is
RQ137229372DE. Said barcode was also found in the e-
mail of accused persons. Name and address of accused
No. 2 has been mentioned on the said parcel and phone
number mentioned on it is that of accused No. 1. Pursuant
to controlled delivery, petitioners - accused Nos. 1 and 2
have received the dummy parcel. That itself indicates that
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:40764
HC-KAR
accused persons have placed the order and parcel has
been sent to them containing the contra band. Accused
No. 1 has admitted in his voluntary statement about
placing of order in the name of accused No. 2. Accused
No. 2 in his voluntary statement has also admitted the
order placed by accused No. 1 in his name and he was
aware that the order was for securing the narcotic drugs
i.e., LSD.
8. The above aspects indicates that there is a
prima facie involvement of accused Nos.1 and 2 in
securing LSD of commercial quantity.
9. Section 37 of NDPS Act 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
offences under section 19 or section 24 or section
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:40764
HC-KAR
27A and also for offences involving commercial
quantity 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.
10. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of
India through Narcotics Control Bureau Vs.
Md.Nawaz Khan (supra) has observed thus:
"21. Under Section 37(1)(b)(ii), the
limitations on the grant of bail for offences
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:40764
HC-KAR
punishable under Sections 19, 24 or 27A and also
for offences involving a commercial quantity are :
(i) The Prosecutor must be given an
opportunity to oppose the application for bail; and
(ii) There must exist 'reasonable grounds to
believe' that (a) the person is not guilty of such an
offence; and (b) he is not likely to commit any
offence while on bail.
22. The standard prescribed for the grant of
bail is 'reasonable ground to believe' that the
person is not guilty of the offence. Interpreting the
standard of 'reasonable grounds to believe', a two-
judge Bench of this Court in Union of India vs. Shiv
Shanker Kesari, 2007 (7) SCC 798 held that:(SCC
pp.801-02, paras 7-8 & 10.-11)
"7. The expression used in Section
37(1)(b)(ii) is "reasonable grounds". The
expression means something more than
prima facie grounds. It connotes substantial
probable causes for believing that the
accused is not guilty of the offence charged
and this reasonable belief contemplated in
turn points to existence of such facts and
circumstances as are sufficient in themselves
to justify recording of satisfaction that the
accused is not guilty of the offence charged.
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:40764
HC-KAR
8. The word "reasonable" has in law the
prima facie meaning of reasonable in regard
to those circumstances of which the actor,
called on to act reasonably, knows or ought
to know. It is difficult to give an exact
definition of the word "reasonable".
"7. ... In Stroud's Judicial Dictionary, 4th
Edn., p. 2258 states that it would be
unreasonable to expect an exact
definition of the word 'reasonable'.
Reason varies in its conclusions according
to the idiosyncrasy of the individual, and
the times and circumstances in which he
thinks. The reasoning which built up the
old scholastic logic sounds now like the
jingling of a child's toy."
(See Municipal Corpn. of Delhi v. Jagan
Nath Ashok Kumar, 1987 4 SCC 497 ( p. 504,
para 7) and Gujarat Water Supply and
Sewerage Board v. Unique Erectors (Gujarat)
(P) Ltd.1989(1)SCC532 )
10. The word "reasonable" signifies "in
accordance with reason". In the ultimate
analysis it is a question of fact, whether a
particular act is reasonable or not depends on
the circumstances in a given situation. (See
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:40764
HC-KAR
Municipal Corpn. of Greater Mumbai v. Kamla
Mills Ltd.)
11. The court while considering the
application for bail with reference to Section
37 of the Act is not called upon to record a
finding of not guilty. It is for the limited
purpose essentially confined to the question
of releasing the accused on bail that the court
is called upon to see if there are reasonable
grounds for believing that the accused is not
guilty and records its satisfaction about the
existence of such grounds. But the court has
not to consider the matter as if it is
pronouncing a judgment of acquittal and
recording a finding of not guilty."
11. In the said decision the Hon'ble Apex Court has
also considered what amounts to conscious possession
wherein it is held as under:
"26. What amounts to "conscious
possession" was also considered in Dharampal
Singh v. State of Punjab, 2010 9 SCC 608 where it
was held that the knowledge of possession of
contraband has to be gleaned from the facts and
circumstances of a case. The standard of conscious
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:40764
HC-KAR
possession would be different in case of a public
transport vehicle with several persons as opposed
to a private vehicle with a few persons known to
one another. In Mohan Lal v. State of Rajasthan,
2015 (6) SCC 222 this Court also observed that the
term "possession" could mean physical possession
with animus; custody over the prohibited
substances with animus; exercise of dominion and
control as a result of concealment; or personal
knowledge as to the existence of the contraband
and the intention based on this knowledge."
12. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of
Kerala Vs. and others Vs. Rajesh and others (supra)
observed thus:
"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 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
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:40764
HC-KAR
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 the 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."
13. A perusal of the above aspects indicates that
there is reasonable belief that accused persons are
involved in commission of offence alleged against them.
The accused persons have not placed any circumstances
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:40764
HC-KAR
which indicate that they are not guilty of the alleged
offences.
14. In the case of Adam Pasha Vs. Union of
India (supra) a coordinate Bench of this Court has
granted bail to the accused therein on the ground that he
is a consumer and therefore, observations made in the
said case is not applicable to the case on hand as the
accused persons themselves have admitted that they
secured the contra band for supply to other persons whose
names are also reflected in the voluntary statement of
accused No. 1.
15. In the case of Ibrahim Madannur Vs. State
of Karnataka by E and N Crime Police Station (supra)
a coordinate Bench of this Court has granted bail to the
accused therein on the ground that he was a driver of the
car and he was not in conscious possession of the ganja
seized from the said car. Therefore, said decision is not
applicable to the case on hand.
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:40764
HC-KAR
16. In the case of Bharath Chaudhary Vs. Union
of India (supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court granted bail to
the accused persons on the ground that there is no
quantitative analysis of the sample. In the case on hand
qualitative and quantitative analysis of the sample has
been carried out.
17. In the case of Sangi Reddy @ Tilak Sai Vs.
Union of India (supra) a coordinate Bench of this Court
has considered similar case and granted bail to the
accused only on the ground that there is compliance of
requirement of Section 50-A of the NDPS Act. In the case
on hand, there is compliance of requirement of provisions
of Section 50-A of the NDPS Act. Therefore, the said
decision is not helpful to the accused persons.
18. In the case on hand investigation is still in
progress. Offence alleged against the accused persons is
punishable with imprisonment which may extend up to 20
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:40764
HC-KAR
years. Considering all these aspects, petitioners - accused
Nos. 1 and 2 are not entitled for grant of bail.
19. In the result, petitions are dismissed.
Sd/-
(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR)
JUDGE
LRS
Ct.sm
