- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:12469 CRL.P No. 11889 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 11889 OF 2024 BETWEEN: RUHITHH HUSSAIN S/O ASHRAF AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS NO.3/1, 1ST FLOOR 4TH CROSS, MUNIVEERAPPA LAYOUT, SHAMPUR, BANGALORE. …PETITIONER (BY SRI ALI MOHAMMED, ADV.) AND: THE STATE BY AMRUTHAHALLI POLICE STATION, BANGALORE REP. BY HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. N. NAITHA GIRISH, HCGP) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439 CR.PC (FILED U/S 483 BNNS) PRAYING TO CONSIDERING THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, THIS HONBLE COURT MAY KINDLY BE PLEASED TO ALLOW THIS PETITION TO ALLOW THIS PETITION AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENT POLICE TO RELEASE THE PETITIONERS ON BAIL IN CONNECTION WITH CR.NO.25/2024, SPL.C.C.NO.1351/2024 REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT POLICE FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S Digitally signed by NANDINI MS Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:12469 CRL.P No. 11889 of 2024 22I OF NDPS ACT, ON THE FILE OF 35TH ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY ORAL ORDER 1. Accused in Spl.CC.No.1351/2024 pending before the Court of XXXIV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge & Spl. Judge (NDPS), Bengaluru, arising out of Crime No.25/2024 registered by Amruthahally Police Station, Bengaluru City, for the offence punishable under Section 22(C) of the NDPS Act, is before this Court under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023, seeking regular bail. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 3. FIR in Crime No.25/2025 was registered by Amruthahally Police Station, Bengaluru City, against the petitioner herein for the aforesaid offence based on the first information dated 25.01.2024 received from Bhimashankar Heroor, Sub-Inspector of Police attached to Amruthahally Police Station, Bengaluru. During the course of investigation of the case, petitioner herein who was apprehended along with the contraband article allegedly MDMA totally weighing 210 grams was arrested on 25.01.2024, and subsequently remanded to judicial custody. Investigation of the case - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:12469 CRL.P No. 11889 of 2024 is completed and charge sheet is filed against petitioner for the aforesaid offence. His bail application filed before the jurisdictional Sessions Court in Crl. Misc. No.7615/2024 was rejected 19.09.2024. Therefore, he is before this Court. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has no other criminal antecedents. He is in custody for the last more than one year. There is no compliance of Section 57 of the NDPS Act in the present case. He also submits that there is delay in compliance of the requirement under Section 52A of the NDPS Act in the present case. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition. 5. Per contra, learned HCGP who has opposed the petition submits that inadvertently the report submitted by the Investigation Officer under Section 57 of the NDPS Act was not produced along with the charge sheet and the same was subsequently produced before the Trial Court which has been duly accepted. He also submits that compliance of Section 52A of the NDPS Act has been done within a reasonable time. Petitioner is found in possession of commercial quantity of contraband article. Therefore, in view of the rigour under Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act, the petitioner is not entitled for the relief sought. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the petition. 6. Perusal of the material on record would go to show that based on credible information received from the first informant, a raid was - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:12469 CRL.P No. 11889 of 2024 conducted to the house in which the petitioner was residing within the jurisdiction of Amruthahally Police Station and from the possession of the petitioner, totally 210 grams of contraband article allegedly MDMA was recovered. Petitioner was, thereafter, arrested in the present case on 25.01.2024 and subsequently remanded to judicial custody. Along with the charge sheet, the police appears to have inadvertently filed the report under Section 57 of the NDPS Act, which was prepared in Crime No.63/2023. After realizing the mistake committed, the prosecution has sought permission of the Trial Court and submitted the report dated 26.01.2024 prepared by the Investigation Officer under Section 57 of the NDPS Act, and the said report was duly accepted by the Trial Court. Therefore, there is no merit in the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that there is no compliance of Section 57 of the NDPS Act in the present case. 7. In addition to the same, it is seen that though there is some delay in complying with the requirement of Section 52A of the NDPS Act, it cannot be said that the said delay is inordinate and the same would prejudice the case of the petitioner. It is not the case of the petitioner that there is no absolute compliance of Section 52A of the NDPS Act in the present case, but his grievance is about delay in compliance. If such a delay is not inordinate and the accused has failed to point out that prejudice is caused to him because of such - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:12469 CRL.P No. 11889 of 2024 delay, only for the reason of delay the accused who is involved in a case registered for the offence punishable under Section 22(C) of the NDPS Act cannot be enlarged on bail. 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU VS KASHIF - 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3848, has held that delay in compliance of the requirement of Section 52A of the NDPS Act, neither entitles the accused to be released on bail nor would vitiate the trial. 9. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU VS MOHIT AGARWAL - (2022)18 SCC 374, in paragraph no.19, has observed as under: "19. In our opinion the narrow parameters of bail available under Section 37 of the Act, have not been satisfied in the facts of the instant case. At this stage, it is not safe to conclude that the respondent has successfully demonstrated that there are reasonable grounds to believe that he is not guilty of the offence alleged against him, for him to have been admitted to bail. The length of the period of his custody or the fact that the charge-sheet has been filed and the trial has commenced are by themselves not considerations that can be treated as persuasive grounds for granting relief to the respondent under Section 37 of the NDPS Act." 10. In the case on hand, petitioner was found in possession of commercial quantity of contraband article MDMA, and therefore, in - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:12469 CRL.P No. 11889 of 2024 view of the rigor under Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act, his prayer for grant of regular bail cannot be considered at this stage. Petition is, therefore, dismissed. Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE KK