- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:2909 CRL.P No. 10897 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 10897 OF 2024 BETWEEN: SYED PEER S/O LATE SYED SHARIFF AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/O NO.89, 9TH CROSS, C BLOCK, GOUSIYANAGARA, MYSORE, KARNATAKA - 570 019 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PAVAN KUMAR G., ADVOCATE) AND: UNION OF INDIA BY NARCOTIC CONTROL BUREAU, BENGALURU ZONAL UNIT, THROUGH INTELLIGENCE OFFICER P. SIVA RAO, NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU, MHA, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, BANGALORE ZONAL UNIT, BENGALURU - 560 063 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. RAJASHEKAR .S., SR CGSC) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439 CR.P.C (U/S 483 BNSS) PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN SPL.CC.NO.2041/2021 (NCB CASE NO.48/1/11/2021/BZU OF NCB) ON THE FILE OF XXXIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPL. JUDGE (NDPS), BENGALURU, FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 8(C) R/W 20(B)(II)(C), 25, 27, 27(A), 28, 29 OF NDPS ACT. THIS CRL.P, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA Digitally signed by SWAPNA V Location: high court of karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:2909 CRL.P No. 10897 of 2024 ORAL ORDER The petitioner-accused No.4 is before this Court seeking grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in NCB Case No.48/1/11/2021/BZU registered by NCB, Bangalore Zonal Unit through Intelligence Officer, pending in Spl.C.C.No.2041/2021, on the file of the learned XXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge & Spl.Judge (NDPS), Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Section 8(c) read with 20 (b)(ii)(C), 25, 27, 27A, 28 & 29 of Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Act, 1985 (for short 'NDPS'). 2. Heard Sri. Pavan Kumar G, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rajashekar S, learned senior CGSC for the respondent. 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: “Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.?” My answer to the above point is in ‘Negative’ for the following: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:2909 CRL.P No. 10897 of 2024 R E A S O N S 4. The petitioner being accused No.4 is seeking grant of bail. He was apprehended during 2021 in NCB No.48/1/11/2021/BZU for having committed similar offence. Thereafter, his presence was secured in the present case by obtaining the body warrant, and is now arrayed as accused No.4. 5. It is the allegation against the petitioner - accused No.4 that he is the father of accused No.2, who was caught red handed, while in possession of the contraband i.e., 2.6 kgs of hashish, along with accused No.1. During investigation, it was found that this petitioner being the father of accused No.2, was running a bag manufacturing unit in Mysuru and he used to assist the co-accused in packing the contraband parcel inside the bag by re-stitching the layers and used to hand over the bag containing contraband to courier service for the purpose of sending it to Qatar. It is the specific contention of the prosecution that, there were WhatsApp chats between accused Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 and photos were retrieved from the handset of accused No.1. The voluntary statement of the present petitioner was recorded and he identified WhatsApp chats, - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:2909 CRL.P No. 10897 of 2024 photos and videos found in the mobile handset of accused No.1. It is also the contention of the prosecution that the call detail records establish frequent contact between the petitioner with accused Nos.1, 2, 3 and 5. Therefore, the complaint came to be filed. 6. It is pertinent to note that the complaint came to be filed by the complainant on 02.12.2021. Admittedly, the petitioner has not filed any application seeking grant of bail before this Court till filing of his first petition before this Court in Crl.P.No.9405 of 2023, which came to be disposed of vide order dated 17.01.2024 as the same was withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to renew his application for bail before the Trial Court if the trial does not conclude within a period of six months. 7. It is stated that the trial in the matter is almost completed except it is pending for examination of the last witness. It is also admitted that accused Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 are also in judicial custody and they are facing trial. Similar bail applications filed by co-accused are rejected by the Trial Court as well as by this Court on merits. All these facts and - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:2909 CRL.P No. 10897 of 2024 circumstances disentitles the petitioner from seeking grant of bail at this stage only on the ground of delay in trial. Admittedly, trial has already progressed and almost all the witnesses except the one are examined before the Trial Court. Looking to the nature and seriousness of the offence and the evidence of the witnesses available on record, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled for grant of bail. 8. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the negative and proceed to pass the following: ORDER The petition is dismissed. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks liberty to move similar petition before the Trial Court, if the trial does not conclude within 6 months from today. Liberty is reserved as prayed for. Sd/- (M G UMA) JUDGE SPV List No.: 2 Sl No.: 4