[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Syed Riyaz @ Chapper Riyaz vs The State Of Karnataka on 9 February, 2026
Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:7525
CRL.P No. 17265 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 17265 OF 2025 (439(Cr.PC) /
483(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
SYED RIYAZ @ CHAPPER RIYAZ
S/O KAMAR PASHA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
NO.77, 4TH MAIN ROAD
NEAR UMER FAROOQ MASJID
BYRASANDRA, 1ST BLOCK
JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-560 041
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. M. ABDUL SALAM, ADVOCATE FOR
SMT. SHANTHALADEVI B.R, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
LAKSHMINARAYANA THE STATE REP. BY THE
MURTHY RAJASHRI
Location: HIGH INSPECTOR OF POLICE
COURT OF KUMARSWAMY LAYOUT POLICE STATION
KARNATAKA
BANGALORE-560 078
REP. BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BANGALORE-560 001
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. M.R. PATIL, HCGP)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C
(FILED UNDER SECTION 483 OF BNSS) PRAYING TO ENLARGE
THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN SPL.C.NO.1767/2025 FOR THE
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:7525
CRL.P No. 17265 of 2025
HC-KAR
ALLEGED OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 20(b)(ii)C
OF NDPS ACT REGISTERED BY THE KUMARSWAMY LAYOUT
P.S., IN CR.NO.101/2025 NOW THE CASE IS PENDING BEFORE
ADDL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (XXXIV) AT
BENGALURU.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
ORAL ORDER
This petition is filed by accused No.4 under Section
483 of the BNSS praying to grant bail in Special Case
No.1767/2025 registered for offences punishable under
Section 20(c)(ii) C of NDPS Act arising out of Crime
No.101/2025 of Kumarswamy Layout Police Station,
Bengaluru pending on the file of Additional City Civil and
Sessions Judge(XXXIV), Bangalore.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent
-State.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would
contend that accused No.1 has been granted bail by this
Court in Criminal Petition No.11477/2025, accused No.2
NC: 2026:KHC:7525
HC-KAR
has been granted bail by the Sessions Court in Criminal
Miscellaneous No.7804/2025 and accused No.3 has been
granted bail by the Sessions Court in Criminal
Miscellaneous No.7455/2025. He further contends that the
petitioner has been arrested in Crime No.242/2025
registered by the same police station. The Investigating
Officer in both cases are same. The complaint in the
present case is by PSI and the complaint in the Crime
No.242/2025 is by Police Constable. He further contends
that if the recovery of contraband is from the vehicle, it
cannot be said that it is in conscious possession of the
accused as held in Union of India v. Bal Mukund and
others1. He contends that if the informant and
Investigating Officer is the same, it creates doubt and
violates the right to fair investigation and it is held in
Mohan Lal Vs State of Punjab2. On these grounds, he
prayed to allow the petition.
Reported in (2009) 12 SCC 161
Reported in (2018) 17 SCC 627
NC: 2026:KHC:7525
HC-KAR
4. Per contra, learned High Court Government
Pleader for the respondent -State would contend that the
petitioner is the maternal uncle of accused No.1. Accused
Nos.1 to 4 were found in the car and on seeing the police
this petitioner -accused No.4 ran away from the car and
police caught accused Nos.1 to 3 and ganja of 23.031 kg
have been seized from the car. The quantity of ganja
seized is commercial quantity and therefore, rigor of
Section 37 of NDPS Act is attracted. The charge sheet
materials show prima facie case against the petitioner for
offence alleged against him. The offence alleged is
provided with sentence of imprisonment which may extend
upto 20 years. The petitioner is having criminal
antecedents and involved in another case, committing
similar offence. If the petitioner is granted bail, there are
chances of him again committing similar offence. With
this, he prayed to reject the petition.
NC: 2026:KHC:7525
HC-KAR
5. Having heard learned counsels, the Court has
perused the charge sheet and other materials placed on
record.
6. As per charge sheet, the case of the
prosecution is that when C.W.1 and C.W.2 were on
petrolling duty on 29.04.2025 at about 03.30p.m., they
received credible information, they went to the spot and
found Innova car, one person ran away and three persons
were caught. Ganja of 29 kg and 31 gram has been seized
from the car. Accused Nos.1 to 3 disclosed the name of
this petitioner as the person ran away. Along with the
Ganja, weighing machine, two Samsung mobiles and
another car have been seized.
7. Learned counsel for petitioner has not produced
the copies of orders under which accused Nos.1 to 3 have
been granted bail.
8. The petitioner is maternal uncle of accused no.
1. Accused Nos.1 to 3 have disclosed the name of this
petitioner as the person who ran away from the car. The
NC: 2026:KHC:7525
HC-KAR
quantity of ganja seized from the car is commercial
quantity. As the quantity of ganja seized is commercial
quantity, the rigor of Section 37 of the NDPS Act is
attracted. The charge sheet materials show prima facie
case against the petitioner for offences alleged against
him. The petitioner is also involved in Crime No.242/2025
for committing similar offence, that itself indicates that the
petitioner is having criminal antecedents. If the petitioner
is granted bail, there are chances of him again committing
similar offence. Considering the above aspect, the
petitioner has not made out any grounds for grant of bail.
In the result, the petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR)
JUDGE
DSP
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16
