- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:13351 CRL.P No. 1985 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1985 OF 2025 BETWEEN: SRI SINU, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, S/O KUTTAN SHANKAR, ARASUVILA VEEDU, AROOR, PONGANADU POST, TRIVANDRUM, KERALA - 696 601. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. BINU M., ADVOCATE) AND: UNION OF INDIA, INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE, BENGALURU ZONAL UNIT, NO.8(2)P OPPOSITE BDA COMPLEX, HBR LAYOUT, KALYANAGAR POST, BANASWADI, BENGLAURU - 560 043. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.MADHU N RAO., ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439 CR.PC (FILED U/S 483 BNNS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO GRANT BAIL TO THE PETITIONER IN SPL.C.C NO. 236/2022 ARISING OUT OF F.NO.DRI/BZU/S-IV/ENQ-NIL/(INT-03)/2022, REGISTERED BY DIRECTOR OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE, BENGALURU ZONAL UNIT, P/U/S 8(C), 21(C), 23(C), 28 AND 29 OF THE NDPS ACT 1985, WHICH IS PENDING BEFORE THE Digitally signed by KAVYA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:13351 CRL.P No. 1985 of 2025 XXXIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE FOR NDPS CASES AT BENGALURU (CCH-33). THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY ORAL ORDER Accused in Spl.C.C.No.236/2023 pending before the Court of XXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for NDPS, Bengaluru, arising out of F.NO.DRI/BZU/S-IV/ENQ-NIL/(INT-03)/2022, registered by Intelligence Officer, DRI, Bangalore Zonal Unit for offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 21(c), 23(c), 28 and 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'NDPS Act') is before this Court under Section 483 of BNSS 2023 seeking regular bail. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 3. Based on the credible information received, the Intelligence Officer of DIR on 01.08.2022 had intercepted the petitioner who was departing from platform No.8 of - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:13351 CRL.P No. 1985 of 2025 KSR Bangalore railway station and from his possession 16 Kgs of contraband article allegedly Heroin was recovered which he was carrying in a bag. Petitioner was arrested on 02.08.2022 and after completing the investigation, a complaint has been filed before the trial Court on 20.01.2023. Bail application filed by the petitioner before the trial Court in Crl.Misc.No.9270/2024 was rejected on 24th October, 2024. Thereafter, petitioner had approached this Court in Crl.P.No.11863/2024 which was dismissed as not pressed on 18.12.2024, with liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh petition, if need arises. It is under these circumstances, petitioner is before this Court in this successive bail application. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act in the present case and therefore the search itself gets vitiated. In support of this contention, he has placed reliance of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of State of Rajasthan vs. Parmanand and - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:13351 CRL.P No. 1985 of 2025 another, reported in (2014) 5 SCC 345. He further submits that petitioner has no criminal antecedents and he is in custody for the last more than two years seven months. Accordingly, he prays to allow this petition. 5. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for respondent who has filed his statement of objections has opposed the prayer made in this petition. He submits that trial in the case has commenced and already two witnesses are examined. Petitioner is found in possession of commercial quantity of contraband article and therefore, in view of rigor under Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act, his prayer is liable to be dismissed. 6. Petitioner was intercepted by the Intelligence Officer of DRI in the present case on 01.08.2022 based on the credible information that the petitioner was carrying contraband article. In paragraph No.8 of the complaint submitted by the Intelligence Officer after completing of investigation, it is stated that on 01.08.2022 petitioner was issued with a letter giving option to him to get - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:13351 CRL.P No. 1985 of 2025 searched before the Magistrate or gazetted officer, as per the provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act and petitioner chose to get himself searched before a gazetted officer and in reply, the officers of DRI informed the petitioner that Praveen Kumar Khanagwal, Senior Intelligence Officer (C.W-4) - a gazetted officer was present along with the squad which intercepted the petitioner and thereafter, petitioner was searched by the said gazetted officer. 7. Material on record would go to show that from the person of the petitioner the investigation Officer has seized cash of Rs.3000/- which was subjected to panchanama. Therefore in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.K.Raju vs. State of West Bengal reported in (2018) 9 SCC 708 compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act becomes mandatory. 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Parmanand (supra), in paragraph Nos.19 and 20 has observed as follows: - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:13351 CRL.P No. 1985 of 2025 "19. We also notice that PW-10 SI Qureshi informed the respondents that they could be searched before the nearest Magistrate or before the nearest gazetted officer or before PW-5 J.S. Negi, the Superintendent, who was a part of the raiding party. It is the prosecution case that the respondents informed the officers that they would like to be searched before PW-5 J.S. Negi by PW-10 SI Qureshi. This, in our opinion, is again a breach of Section 50(1) of the NDPS Act. The idea behind taking an accused to the nearest Magistrate or the nearest gazetted officer, if he so requires, is to give him a chance of being searched in the presence of an independent officer. Therefore, it was improper for PW-10 SI Qureshi to tell the respondents that a third alternative was available and that they could be searched before PW-5 J.S. Negi, the Superintendent, who was part of the raiding party. PW-5 J.S. Negi cannot be called an independent officer. We are not expressing any opinion on the question whether if the respondents had voluntarily expressed that they wanted to be searched before PW-5 J.S. Negi, the search would have been vitiated or not. But PW-10 SI Qureshi could not have given a third option to the respondents when Section 50(1) of the NDPS Act does not provide - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:13351 CRL.P No. 1985 of 2025 for it and when such option would frustrate the provisions of Section 50(1) of the NDPS Act. On this ground also, in our opinion, the search conducted by PW-10 SI Qureshi is vitiated. 20. We have, therefore, no hesitation in concluding that breach of Section 50(1) of the NDPS Act has vitiated the search. The conviction of the respondents was, therefore, illegal..." 9. Under the circumstances, prima facie it appears that there is no compliance of 50 of the NDPS Act in the present case. Petitioner who has no other criminal antecedents is in custody from 02.08.2022. Out of 8 charge sheet witnesses, till date only two charge sheet witnesses have been examined before the trial Court. 10. In the case of Chitta Biswas Alias Subhas vs. State of West Bengal reported in 2020 SCC OnLine SC 1536, the Hon'ble Supreme Court taking into consideration that the accused was in custody for a period of one year seven months and there was no sufficient progress in trial, without expressing any opinion on merits and demerits of the case, has granted regular bail to the - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:13351 CRL.P No. 1985 of 2025 accused. In the case of Nitish Adhikary alias Bapan vs. State of West Bengal reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 2068 in a case where charge sheet was filed for the offences punishable under Sections 21(c) and 37 of the NDPS Act and accused was in custody for a period of one year seven months, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has granted regular bail on the ground that trial is still in the preliminary stage, as only one witness was examined. 11. Considering the aforesaid aspects of the matter, I am of the view that without expressing any opinion on the merits and demerits of the case, the prayer made by the petitioner who is custody for more than two years seven months for grant of regular bail needs to be answered affirmatively. Accordingly, the following:- ORDER The petition is allowed. The petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail in Spl.C.C.No.236/2023 pending before the Court of XXXIII - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:13351 CRL.P No. 1985 of 2025 Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for NDPS, Bengaluru, arising out of F.NO.DRI/BZU/S- IV/ENQ-NIL/(INT-03)/2022, registered by Intelligence Officer, DIR, Bangalore Zonal Unit for offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 21(c), 23(c), 28 and 29 of the NDPS Act, subject to the following conditions: a) The petitioner shall execute personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with two sureties for the likesum, out of which one shall be local surety, to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court; b) The petitioner shall appear regularly on all the dates of hearing before the Trial Court unless the Trial Court exempts his appearance for valid reasons; c) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly threaten or tamper with the prosecution witnesses; d) The petitioner shall not involve in similar offences in future; - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:13351 CRL.P No. 1985 of 2025 e) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without permission of the said Court until the case registered against him is disposed off. Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE KVR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32