- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:18288 CRL.P No. 7018 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF MAY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7018 OF 2025 BETWEEN: SRI.CHANNABASAVAIAH S/O MADAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.10, POLICE QUARTERS, BADRIKOPPALU ROAD BEHIND FOREST OFFICE,NAGAMANGALA MANDYA -571432 …PETITIONER (BY SRI.MADHUKAR DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE) AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA NAGAMANGALA TOWN POLICE STATION NAGAMANGALA, MANDYA -571432 REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT COMPLEX BENGALURU -560001 …RESPONDENT (BY SMT.SOWMYA R, HCGP) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/SEC.438 CR.P.C (U/S 482 BNSS) PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON ANTICIPATORY BAIL IN THE EVENT OF PETITIONER IS ARRESTED IN CR.NO.3/2025 REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT POLICE IN NAGAMANGALA TOWN P.S., FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/SEC.17(b), 29(2) OF NDPS ACT, 1985, PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MANDYA AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH Digitally signed by SREEDHARAN BANGALORE SUSHMA LAKSHMI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:18288 CRL.P No. 7018 of 2025 ORAL ORDER 1. This petition is filed by the petitioner seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.003/2025, registered by respondent police - Nagamangala Town Police Station for the offences under Sections 17(b) and 29(2) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (for brevity, ‘NDPS’) Act,1985. Factual matrix of the case: 2. It is the case of the prosecution that the petitioner was working as Asst. Sub-inspector at Nagamangala Town Rural Police Station. He received the information to mount surveillance and initiate drive against organized crime and NDPS offenders. In the meantime, the Sub-inspector of Nagamangala Rural Police Station provided the contact number of accused No.2, namely, Prakash who is accused No.2 and also an informer and instructed him to contact the said Prakash regarding registration of the case. 3. It is further stated that the petitioner had received an information from accused No.2 that some persons were carrying opium to Chinya Village. The petitioner had informed his higher officials orally. Accordingly, the Police Inspector and - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:18288 CRL.P No. 7018 of 2025 others have conducted the raid, arrested accused No.1 and produced him before the Town Police Station, Nagamangala. 4. The matter is under investigation. In the meantime, the wife of accused No.1 viz., Smt. Mamatha Devi lodged a complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Mandya District stating that officers of the Nagamangala Rural and Town Police Stations were demanding money to release accused No.1. The Superintendent of Police directed Additional Superintendent Police, Mandya to conduct enquiry. Pending enquiry, the petitioner has been suspended on 13.03.2025. 5. As per the findings of the order of suspension, it is stated that the petitioner herein had contacted accused No.1 and both were doing business of selling opium. The said statement has been made by accused No.2 before the police. In addition to that, during investigation the phone of accused No.2 contained several conversations, which indicate that prima-facie the petitioner had committed the offence, therefore, he had been suspended. Having a reasonable apprehension of his arrest in connection with the case, the petitioner approached this Court seeking for anticipatory bail. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:18288 CRL.P No. 7018 of 2025 6. Heard Sri.Madhukar Deshpande, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.Sowmya.R, learned HCGP for the respondent – State. 7. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. There are no criminal antecedents against the petitioner. In fact, the Sub Inspector of Rural Police Station had given phone number of accused No.2 stating that accused No.2 was the informer of the said Police Station and the petitioner had to contact accused No.2 to secure the information. As such, the petitioner had contacted accused No.2 over phone. However, accused No.2 deliberately, in order to give trouble to the petitioner, mentioned his name before the police. 8. It is further submitted that the petitioner had successfully completed his tenure without any remarks and he was discharging his duty efficiently. The vested interests have tried to implicate him in this case in order to demoralize him. The petitioner being a police officer, will co-operate with the investigation, in case, if he is released on bail. Making such - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:18288 CRL.P No. 7018 of 2025 submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner prays to allow the petition. 9. Per contra, the learned HCGP for respondent-State submitted that the petitioner was working as Asst. Sub Inspector has committed offence by involving in the business of selling opium with other accused. Therefore, it is not appropriate to grant the relief as prayed for. Making such submissions, the learned HCGP prays to dismiss the petition. 10. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the findings of the Trial Court in rejecting the bail, it is needless to say that the confession statement made by the accused under NDPS, Act is admissible in evidence and also has evidentiary value. 11. Having considered the order of suspension passed by the Addl. Superintendent of Police, Mandya, prima-facie, I am of the considered opinion that there is a reasonable apprehension of the arrest of the petitioner in the present case. Therefore, it is appropriate to grant him bail by imposing suitable conditions and those conditions would take care of the apprehension of the prosecution. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:18288 CRL.P No. 7018 of 2025 12. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.003/2025 registered by respondent - police for the offences punishable under Sections 17(b) and 29(2) of NDPS, Act pending on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Mandya, subject to the following conditions: (i) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdiction police. (ii) The petitioner shall not threaten or tamper the prosecution witnesses. (iii) The petitioner shall not commit similar offences till disposal of the case. (iv) The petitioner shall appear before the Trial Court on all hearing dates without fail. (v) The Registry is directed to communicate this order to the jurisdictional Police Station forthwith. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:18288 CRL.P No. 7018 of 2025 In case, if the petitioner violates any of the bail conditions as stated above, the prosecution will be at liberty to seek for cancellation of bail. Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE JS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 63