- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18447 CRL.P No. 5961 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF MAY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5961 OF 2025 (439(Cr.PC) / 483(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SYED SHAIB, S/O. SYED PEER, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, WARD NO. 21, PENSION MOHALLA, 3RD CROSS, KALLADI SAB VATTARA, HASSAN CITY-01. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRATHEEP K C., ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY HASSAN CITY POLICE, HASSAN DISTRICT, REP. BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU - 560 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. ANITHA GIRISH, HCGP FOR RESPONDENT) THIS CRL.P FILED U/S 439 CR.PC (FILED U/S 483 BNSS) PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS PETITION AND ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS ON BAIL IN CR.NO.36/2025 FOR THE OFFENCE Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18447 CRL.P No. 5961 of 2025 P/U/S 8(c), 22(C) OF NDPS ACT AND SEC. 112 OF BNS, 2023 BY THE HASSAN CITY POLICE STATION, HASSAN AND PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE AT HASSAN. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ ORAL ORDER 1. Petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following relief:- "Wherefore, the petitioner in the above petition must humbly prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to allow this petition and enlarge the petitioners on bail in Crime No.36/2025 for the offence punishable U/S 8(c), 22(C) of NDPS Act and Section 112 of BNS 2023 by the Hassan City Police Station, Hassan and pending on the file of the Principal District and Session Judge, at Hassan in the interest of justice and equity." 2. Proceedings in Crime No.36/2025 were initiated against the petitioner for the offenses punishable under Section 8(c) and 22(c) of the NDPS Act read with Section 112 of the BNS 2023. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18447 CRL.P No. 5961 of 2025 3. Submission of Pradeep K C, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the raid, which was conducted on 24.03.2025 at 3:15pm was without recording the same in the register available in the police station, as also without informing a Superior Officer and as such the raid, which has been conducted being violative of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in KARNAIL SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA reported in 2009(8) SCC 539. More particularly, para 35 thereof, which is reproduced hereunder for ready reference :- "35. In conclusion, what is to be noticed is that Abdul Rashid did not require literal compliance with the requirements of Sections 42(1) and 42(2) nor did Sajan Abraham hold that the requirements of Sections 42(1) and 42(2) need not be fulfilled at all. The effect of the two decisions was as follows: (a) The officer on receiving the information [of the nature referred to in sub-section (1) of Section 42] from any person had to record it in writing in the register concerned and forthwith send a copy to his immediate official superior, before proceeding to take action in terms of clauses (a) to (d) of Section 42(1). (b) But if the information was received when the officer was not in police station, but while he was on the move either on patrol duty or otherwise, either by mobile phone, or other means, and the information calls for immediate action and any delay would have resulted in the goods or evidence being removed or destroyed, it would not be - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18447 CRL.P No. 5961 of 2025 feasible or practical to take down in writing the information given to him, in such a situation, he could take action as per clauses (a) to (d) of Section 42(1) and thereafter, as soon as it is practical, record the information in writing and forthwith inform the same to the official superior. (c) In other words, the compliance with the requirements of Sections 42(1) and 42(2) in regard to writing down the information received and sending a copy thereof to the superior officer, should normally precede the entry, search and seizure by the officer. But in special circumstances involving emergent situations, the recording of the information in writing and sending a copy thereof to the official superior may get postponed by a reasonable period, that is, after the search, entry and seizure. The question is one of urgency and expediency. (d) While total non-compliance with requirements of sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 42 is impermissible, delayed compliance with satisfactory explanation about the delay will be acceptable compliance with Section 42. To illustrate, if any delay may result in the accused escaping or the goods or evidence being destroyed or removed, not recording in writing the information received, before initiating action, or non-sending of a copy of such information to the official superior forthwith, may not be treated as violation of Section 42. But if the information was received when the police officer was in the police station with sufficient time to take action, and if the police officer fails to record in writing the information received, or fails to send a copy thereof, to the official superior, then it will be a suspicious circumstance being a clear violation of Section 42 of the Act. Similarly, where the police officer does not record the information at all, and does not inform the official superior at all, then also it will be a clear violation of Section 42 of the Act. Whether there is adequate or substantial compliance with Section 42 or not is a question of fact to be decided in each case. The above position - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18447 CRL.P No. 5961 of 2025 got strengthened with the amendment to Section 42 by Act 9 of 2001." 4. His submission in that the Honorable Apex Court has categorically lay down guidelines and the compliance is to be made in terms of Section 42(1) and 42(2) of the NDPS Act, which requires an officer, who receives any information from any person to record the same in writing in the register concerned and forthwith send a copy to his immediate Superior Officer before proceeding to take action in terms of clause A to D of Section 42(1) of the NDPS Act. 5. When the matter was taken up on the 27.05.2025, learned HCGP was called upon to verify, obtain instruction and make her submission as to whether such recordal has been made prior to the raid and the information has been communicated to the Superior Officer prior to the raid. Today the case diary has been produced and on that basis, learned HCGP submits that the same has been recorded in the case diary and the information having been communicated to the Superior Officer is also so - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18447 CRL.P No. 5961 of 2025 recorded. A perusal of the case diary indicates that the entry which has been made is on the 24.03.2025 of 18:37 hours i.e., much after the raid, which was conducted at 3.15pm. The said case diary does not reflect the transmittal of the information to the Superior Officer as required under sub para a of para 35 of the decision KARNAIL SINGH's case. Hence it is clear that the procedure which has been laid down by the Honorable Apex Court has not been complied with by the respondents. 6. In that view of the matter, I do not find any reason to continue the incarceration of the petitioner and as such I pass the following:- ORDER. The petition filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. is allowed. The petitioner shall be released on bail in connection with Crime No.36/2025 of Hassan City Police Station, Hassan, for the offences punishable under Sections Section 8(c), 22(c) of the NDPS Act read with Section 112 of the BNS 2023 now pending on the file of - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18447 CRL.P No. 5961 of 2025 Principal District and Sessions Judge, Hassan, subject to the following conditions: i. The petitioner shall execute his personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court; ii. The petitioner shall appear before the Committal Court on every date of hearing; iii. The petitioner shall co-operate in the conclusion of the trial in the said proceedings. iv. The petitioner shall not threaten or tamper the prosecution witness/s in any manner. v. The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial court without prior permission, till the case registered is disposed of. vi. The petitioner shall furnish list of movable and immovable property held by him to the said Court. SD/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE NG List No.: 3 Sl No.: 45