- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25755 CRL.P No. 14414 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.14414 OF 2025 (439(2)(Cr.PC) / 483(3)(BNSS) BETWEEN: STATE OF KARNATAKA BY CYBER, ECONOMIC AND NARCOTICS CRIME POLICE STATION, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT, MANGALURU, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU -560 001. …PETITIONER (BY SRI CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER) AND: MOHAMMED ISHAN S/O ABDUL KHADAR, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/AT NO.5-5, DARGA ROAD, BASTIPADPU OPPOSITE POST OFFICE, ULLAL DAKSHINA KANNADA-575 020 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI RENSPRE PRITHESH DSOUZA, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439(2) CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PRAYING TO CANCEL THE ORDER GRANTING BAIL TO RESPONDENT/ACCUSED VIDE ORDER DATED 12.03.2025 PASSED BY THE PRL.DISTRICT AND Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25755 CRL.P No. 14414 of 2025 SESSIONS JUDGE, DAKSHINA KANNADA, MANGALURU IN CRL.MISC NO.13/2025. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER Heard Sri Channappa Erappa, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the petitioner/State and Sri Renspre Prithesh D’Souza, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. State has filed the present petition under Section 439 (2) of Code of Criminal Procedure with the following prayer: “Wherefore, the petitioner –State most respectfully prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to: (a) Cancel the order granting bail to respondent/accused vide order dated 12.03.2025 passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru in Crl.Misc.No.13/2025; (b) Direct that Accused No.5- Respondent be arrested and committed to custody”. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25755 CRL.P No. 14414 of 2025 3. Petitioner being accused of the offence punishable under the provisions of Section 8(c), 22(c), 29(1) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic substances Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘NDPS Act’) r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code in Special Case No.259/2024, arising out of Crime No.68/2024 of Cyber Economics and Narcotics Crime Police Station, Mangaluru, Dakshina Kannada, approached the learned Principal District and Session Judge, Mangaluru for grant of anticipatory bail. 4. Petition on contest came to be allowed by order dated 12.03.2025. 5. Petitioner has complied the conditions imposed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge in the order dated 12.03.2025 passed in Crl.Misc.No.13/2025 and the matter is now pending for trial. 6. The grievance of the State is that the petitioner was involved in other two cases where charge against him is under the provisions of NDPS Act and suppressing the said facts, he had obtained an order of grant of anticipatory bail. Therefore, the bail is to be cancelled. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25755 CRL.P No. 14414 of 2025 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/accused No. 5 in Special Case No.259/2024 supports the order. 8. Learned Special Judge while allowing the application noted that Sub Inspector of Police, CCB with panchas proceeded to the place as per the credible information and conducted the raid and caught hold of persons by name Mohammed Amin Rafi, Muhammed Sinan Abdulla, Mohammad Nawman, Mohammad Sinan Abdulla, Mohammad Nawman, Mohammad Shafeel and seized 270 grams of brown colour MDMA crystal, four mobile handsets, digital scale, 90 empty small zip lock plastic covers and handed over them to the jurisdictional police who in turn registered the case and based on the information furnished by them, the present petitioner has been arraigned as additional accused No. 5. 9. The Trial Court also noted that confessional statement of the co-accused would not be a ground to arraign additional accused in the absence of any independent material collected by the Investigation Agency. Therefore, he extended the benefit of grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25755 CRL.P No. 14414 of 2025 10. Since the bail conditions are complied and there is no complaint against the respondent subsequent to grant of anticipatory bail, the rare remedy of cancellation of the bail could not be warranted in the attendant facts and circumstance of the case. 11. Nothing prevented the prosecution to object for grant of bail by bringing into the notice of the Trial Court that the respondent is a habitual. 12. In the absence of such material placed on record, discretionary and special power exercised by the learned Principal District Judge needs no interference in the present case. 13. Accordingly, the following: ORDER Criminal Petition is dismissed. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE MR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2