- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:4247 CRL.P No. 722 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 722 OF 2025 BETWEEN: SALEEMULLA KHAN S/O. SHAFIULLA KHAN, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/AT NO.4837, GOUTHAMMA ROAD, NEELAKANTANAGARA, NANJANGUD TOWN, MYSURU DISTRICT-571301 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. LETHIF B., ADVOCATE) AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA BY NARASIMHARAJA POLICE STATION, MYSORE DISTRICT, REP. BY SPP, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE-560001. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER) THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 CR.PC (FILED UNDER SECTION 483 BNSS) PRAYING TO RELEASE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 20(b)(ii)(C), 25 OF NDPS ACT REGISTERED IN SPL.C.NO.29/2024 (CR.NO.124/2023) OF NARASIMHARAJA POLICE STATION, D.K., PENDING BEFORE VII ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSURU. Digitally signed by SWAPNA V Location: high court of karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:4247 CRL.P No. 722 of 2025 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA ORAL ORDER Petitioner being accused No.3 is seeking grant of bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in Crime No.124/2023 of Narasimharaja Police Station, Mysuru, pending in Spl.C. No.29/2024 on the file of the learned VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C), 25 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant - Shekhar .G. 2. Heard Sri Lethif B., learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Rashmi Patel, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent - State. Perused the materials on record. 3. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:4247 CRL.P No. 722 of 2025 “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: R E A S O N S 4. The petitioner was apprehended on 26.07.2023 and since then, he is in judicial custody. It is the contention of the prosecution that credible information was received by the Police officer that two persons were in possession of ganja and transporting the same in an autorickshaw. When the autorickshaw was waylaid, it was found that the petitioner was the driver of the autorickshaw. Accused No.2 was also in the autorickshaw. They were found in possession of 5 kgs. of ganja. During the investigation, accused Nos.1 and 2 have given information regarding accused No.1, and at their instance, house of accused No.1 was raided where the ganja weighing more than 46 kgs. was found. Therefore, it is contended that the accused have committed the offence as stated above. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:4247 CRL.P No. 722 of 2025 5. The investigation was completed and the charge sheet has been filed. Now, it is stated that the matter is pending for hearing before charge. The prosecution has cited as many as 31 witnesses. Under these circumstances, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is suffering from long incarceration without trial. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that conclusion of the trial may take sufficiently longer period of time, and since the petitioner is not having any criminal antecedents, he may be enlarged on bail subject to conditions. 6. The only ground raised by the learned High Court Government Pleader is that commercial quantify of contraband was seized by the Investigating Officer and under such circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled for grant of bail. It is also her contention that since CWs.8 and 9 are the independent witnesses, there are chances of dissuading them by the petitioner if he is enlarged on bail. Admittedly, the petitioner is not having any criminal antecedents. He is in custody since 26.07.2023. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the conclusion of the trial may take sufficiently longer period of time. No useful purpose would be - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:4247 CRL.P No. 722 of 2025 served by detaining the petitioner in custody, which would amount to a long incarceration without trial and thereby, rights of the petitioner for life and liberty will be infringed. Reasonable conditions may be imposed while enlarging the petitioner on bail which will take care of the interest of the prosecution and also the prosecution witnesses. 7. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the affirmative and proceed to pass the following: ORDER The petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.124/2023 of Narasimharaja Police Station, Mysuru, pending in Spl.C. No.29/2024 on the file of the VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru, on obtaining the bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two 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. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:4247 CRL.P No. 722 of 2025 c) The petitioner shall appear before the Court as and when required. If in case, the petitioner violates any of the conditions as stated above, the prosecution will be at liberty to move the Trial Court seeking cancellation of bail. On furnishing the sureties by the petitioner, the Trial Court is at liberty to direct the Investigating Officer to verify the correctness of the address and authenticity of the documents furnished by the petitioner and the sureties and a report may be called for in that regard, which is to be submitted by the Investigating Officer within 5 days. The Trial Court on satisfaction, may proceed to accept the sureties for the purpose of releasing the petitioner on bail. Sd/- (M G UMA) JUDGE SMA List No.: 2 Sl No.: 7