- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:185 CRL.P No. 103726 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 103726 OF 2024 (439(CR.PC)/483(BNSS)) BETWEEN: MR. AAZARUDDIN S/O. MEHABOOB SAB GADAD, (MENTIONED AS AJRUDDIN MEHABUBSAB GADAD IN FIR) AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC. DRIVER, R/O. KASTURBA NAGAR, TQ. SIRSI TALUK, DIST. UTTARA KANNADA-581402. … PETITIONER (BY SRI MAQBOOLAHAMED M. PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH BHATKAL TOWN P.S., R/BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD. … RESPONDENT (BY SMT.GIRIJA S.HIREMATH, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 439 OF CR.P.C. (483 OF BNSS), SEEKING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.3 ON REGULAR BAIL IN BHATKAL TOWN P.S. CRIME NO.129/2024 REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 8(C) AND 20(B) (II) (A) OF NDPS ACT 1985 PENDING IN THE FILE OF PRL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, UTTAR KANNADA KARWAR, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI BHARATHI H M Digitally signed by BHARATHI H M Date: 2025.01.08 15:39:53 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:185 CRL.P No. 103726 of 2024 ORAL ORDER This petition is filed under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘Cr.PC’ for short) for grant of regular bail in Crime no.129/2024 by Bhatkal Town Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 8 (c) and 20 (b) (ii) (A) of Narcotic Drugs Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (‘NDPS Act’ for short). 2. Sri Maqboolahmed M. Patil, learned counsel for petitioner (accused no.3) submitted as per prosecution case, at about 04.00 p.m. on 10.11.2024, complainant - Police Sub- Inspector of Bhatkal Town Police Station received credible information that accused no.1 to 4 were transporting narcotic substances for illegal sale. At Tenginagundi cross on National Highway-66, Hyundai Accent Car no.KA-51/AB-8802 was intercepted. On search, they found narcotic substances weighing 9 Kgs 170 grams of ganja without any permission, constituting offences punishable under Sections 8 (c) and 20 (b) (ii) (A) of NDPS Act. A complaint was registered. While accused no.1 to 3 were arrested, accused no.4 escaped. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:185 CRL.P No. 103726 of 2024 3. It was submitted, petitioner was innocent and was falsely implicated. He was merely driving Car as per instructions of other accused. He had no knowledge about ganja being transported in Car and even as per prosecution records recovery was at instance of accused no.1. It was submitted, FIR does not mention about recovery of ganja from his possession. It was submitted though FIR mentioned total quantity recovered as 9 Kgs. and 170 grams, exact quantity of narcotic substance was not specified. 4. It was further submitted, provisions of NDPS Act require presence of Gazetted Officer at time of search and seizure. Though, failure to comply with requirement was apparent, prosecution claimed that accused had waived such requirement, which was required to be established by them during trial. 5. It was submitted, petitioner was arrested on 10.11.2022. Since then he was in judicial custody. It was submitted, petitioner was sole bread earner of family having aged parents. It was submitted, lack of any criminal - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:185 CRL.P No. 103726 of 2024 antecedents also fortified his claim of innocence and prayed for grant of bail on any conditions, which he would abide. 6. Smt.Girija S Hiremath, learned HCGP for respondent opposed petition. It was submitted, on 10.11.2024 based on credible information that accused were travelling in car no.KA-51/AB-8802, Police had found said vehicle and based on search of same it was found that petitioner along with other three were travelling in said vehicle and possessed sum of 9 kg 170 grams of narcotic substance (ganja). It was submitted, accused had in writing, waived requirement of conducting search and seizure in presence of Gazetted Officer in writing. Therefore, contention about non-compliance with said requirement, was untenable. 7. It was submitted, since investigation was in progress and at inception stage, prayed for denying bail. It was submitted seized material was sent to FSL for test report and until receipt, contention based on no quantity of narcotic substance was without merit. It was submitted, material collected during investigation would prima facie substantiate commission of offences alleged and until completion of - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:185 CRL.P No. 103726 of 2024 investigation, petitioner could not claim to be innocent. It was further submitted, fact that accused no.1 was involved in similar offences earlier substantiated possibility of accused committing same offence if released on bail. On above grounds sought rejection of bail. 8. Heard learned counsel and perused available material. 9. From above, point that arises for consideration is: “Whether petitioner is entitled for regular bail with conditions?” 10. Point for consideration is answered in negative following reasons. 11. From above, it is seen petitioner - accused no.3 is seeking for grant of regular bail on ground that he is innocent and falsely implicated, merely on ground that he was driver of car in which narcotic substance was allegedly recovered. It is contended, alleged recovery of 9 Kgs 170 grams of Ganja was at instance of accused no.1 and not petitioner herein. Petitioner claims to be unaware about illegal transportation and there was - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:185 CRL.P No. 103726 of 2024 no specific recovery from him and there were no criminal antecedents against him. 12. Though incident occurred on 10.11.2024, matter was still under investigation. Complaint and FIR reveal that when Car bearing registration no.KA-51/AB-8802 was intercepted at Tengingundi cross on NH-66, there were four occupants including petitioner and there was recovery of large quantity of 9 Kgs 170 grams of ganja. Though accused no.1 to 3 were apprehended, accused no.4 evaded arrest and is still at large. Therefore there was need of petitioner for custodial interrogation. 13. Though petitioner denies any recoveries from him and claims to be driving Car, without knowledge of transportation of narcotic substances illegally, same cannot be presumed at this stage. Even fact that only accused no.1 has criminal antecedents would not enure to petitioner unless investigation reveals role of other accused was independent than petitioner as innocent driver. Moreover, prosecution is still to ascertain true owner of Car and both source from where narcotic substance was secured by accused and persons to - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:185 CRL.P No. 103726 of 2024 whom they intended to sell it to. It is precisely on this ground, learned District Judge rejected bail application. There are no reasons to differ at this stage when investigation is still in progress. Hence following: ORDER Petition is rejected, however with liberty to file fresh petition after filing of charge sheet. SD/- (RAVI V.HOSMANI) JUDGE EM/RH CT:PA LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 21