- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32234 CRL.P No. 2632 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2632 OF 2026 BETWEEN: MUBARAK C.C S/O MOHAMED HUSSAIN C.C AGED 25 YEARS PRESENT, NO.24, COCONUT GARDEN CHOLANAYAKANALLI, CHAMUNDI NAGAR RT NAGAR POST, BENGALURU CITY - 560 032 PERMANENT ADDRESS R/AT HUSSAIN C.C CHANGARANCHOLA, CHERURAL ANANTHAVOOR, ANANTHAVUR MALAPPURAM, KERALA - 676 301. …PETITIONER (BY SRI RANGANATH REDDY R, ADV.) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SHO, MALLESHWARAM POLICE STATION BANGALORE, REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU, PIN CODE - 560 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI RANGASWAMY R, HCGP) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439 CR.PC (FILED U/S 483 BNNS) PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.198/2025 DTD 29.10.2025 REGISTERED BY MALLESHWARAM P.S., AND NOW CHARGE SHEET WAS PRODUCED ON 03.01.2026 AND PENDING BEFORE THE LEARNED XXXIV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE (NDPS) BENGALURU IN SPL.CC.NO.176/2026, FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 22(c),20(b) OF NDPS ACT,1985. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32234 CRL.P No. 2632 of 2026 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY ORAL ORDER 1. Accused no.1 in Crime No.198/2025 registered by Malleshwaram Police Station, Bengaluru City, for the offences punishable under Sections 20(b), 22(c) of the NDPS Act, 1985, is before this Court in this petition filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023, seeking regular bail. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 3. FIR in Crime No.198/2025 was registered by Malleshwaram Police Station, Bengaluru City, for the aforesaid offences against the petitioner and another based on the first information dated 29.10.2025 received from Ramesh - Police Sub-Inspector attached to Malleshwaram Police Station, Bengaluru City. In the said case, from the possession of the petitioner, contraband article allegedly ganja weighing 360 grams, hashish (veed oil) weighing 1,250 grams along with other articles were seized under a panchanama and the petitioner was arrested on 29.10.2025 and subsequently remanded to judicial custody. Bail application filed by the petitioner before the Trial Court in Crl. Misc. No.11745/2025 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32234 CRL.P No. 2632 of 2026 was rejected on 02.02.2026. It is under these circumstances, he is before this Court. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a person without any criminal antecedents. Investigation of the case is completed and charge sheet is already filed. Quantitative and qualitative analysis test report of the seized contraband article is not yet secured. He has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of BHARAT CHAUDHARY VS UNION OF INDIA - SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (CRL.) No.5703/2021 disposed of on 13.12.2021, and submits that the twin test laid down under Section 37 of the Act, therefore, cannot be made applicable to the petitioner. He also submits that Rules 11 & 14 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Seizure, Storage, Sampling and Disposal) Rules, 2022, has not been complied in the present case. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition. 5. Per contra, learned HCGP who has opposed the petition, submits that the seized contraband article veed oil (hashish) is of commercial quantity. Non-compliance of the provisions of the NDPS Rules of 2022 cannot be a ground for bail and the same - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32234 CRL.P No. 2632 of 2026 is required to be proved in the trial. He also submits that quantitative and qualitative analysis test report of the seized contraband article is of no consequence in the present case, since the contraband article recovered has tested positive for the drug known as 'hashish' and there is no mixture of any substance. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the petition. 6. It is not in dispute that the contraband article allegedly hashish which was recovered from the possession of the petitioner weighing 1,250 grams is of commercial quantity. The FSL report of the contraband article would go to show that sample of Article-1 had tested positive for the drug cannabis (ganja) and sample of Article-2 has tested positive for the drug hashish oil or liquid hashish which is said to be a concentrated form of cannabis (ganja). The quantitative and qualitative analysis test report of the psychotropic substance becomes necessary when the seized contraband is a mixture in which a portion of psychotropic substance is also found. 7. In Bharat Chaudhary's case (supra), the seized contraband article was tablets which was meant for sexual enhancement and the said tablets allegedly contained narcotic - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32234 CRL.P No. 2632 of 2026 and psychotropic substance. It is under these circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that quantitative and qualitative analysis test report of the seized contraband article would become necessary so as to arrive at a conclusion that the seized contraband article is of commercial quantity. In the said case, it was also found that large number of tablets that were seized contained sex enhanced male potency drugs and the same did not attract the provisions of NDPS Act. 8. So far as the present case is concerned, the seized contraband article is of commercial quantity and the same has responded positive for the drug hashish oil, which is said to be a concentrated preparation of cannabis (ganja). Hashish oil weighing about one kilogram is considered as commercial quantity and the seized contraband article allegedly hashish oil in the present case totally weighs about 1,250 grams, and therefore, there cannot be any doubt that the same is of commercial quantity. 9. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has also made a submission that Rules 11 & 14 of the NDPS Rules, 2022, have not been complied in the present case. According to the learned - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32234 CRL.P No. 2632 of 2026 Counsel for the petitioner, though Rule 11 specifically states that minimum of 25 grams of hashish oil was to be collected as sample, in the present case, only 10 grams was collected as sample. Therefore, according to him, Rule 11 of the NDPS Rules has not been complied in the present case. 10. The Rules of 2022 are framed in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 76 read with Section 52A of the NDPS Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU VS KASHIF - 2024 INSC 1045, has held that non-compliance of Section 52A of the Act cannot be treated as an illegality which would entitle the accused to be released on bail or claim acquittal in the trial, when sufficient material is collected by the investigating officer to establish that search and seizure of the contraband substance was made in due compliance of the mandatory provisions of the Act. 11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of BHARAT AAMBALE VS STATE OF CHATTISGARH - 2025 SCC OnLine SC 110, in paragraph 50, has observed as under "50.… - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32234 CRL.P No. 2632 of 2026 (VIII) Where there has been lapse on the part of the police in either following the procedure laid down in Section 52-A of the NDPS Act or the prosecution in proving the same, it will not be appropriate for the court to resort to the statutory presumption of commission of an offence from the possession of illicit material under Section 54 of the NDPS Act, unless the court is otherwise satisfied as regards the seizure or recovery of such material from the accused persons from the other material on record. (IX) The initial burden will lie on the accused to first lay the foundational facts to show that there was non- compliance of Section 52-A, either by leading evidence of its own or by relying upon the evidence of the prosecution, and the standard required would only be preponderance of probabilities. (X) Once the foundational facts laid indicate non- compliance of Section 52-A of the NDPS Act, the onus would thereafter be on the prosecution to prove by cogent evidence that either: (i) there was substantial compliance with the mandate of Section 52-A of the NDPS Act, OR (ii) satisfy the court that such non-compliance does not affect its case against the accused, and the standard of proof required would be beyond a reasonable doubt." 12. Therefore, when sufficient material is collected by the investigation officer to establish that search and seizure of the contraband substance was made in due compliance of the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32234 CRL.P No. 2632 of 2026 mandatory provisions of the Act, the accused cannot be released on bail, merely for the reason that there is delay in compliance of Section 52A of the Act or there is some irregularity in complying with the Rules framed under the said provision of law. In view of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is very much clear that non- compliance or delay in compliance of Section 52A of the Act or the Rules framed under the said provision of law cannot itself be a ground for granting bail to the accused, if the other material collected as against the accused makes out a prima facie case. 13. In the present case, learned Counsel for the petitioner has not pointed out non-compliance of any mandatory provisions of the Act during the course of registration of the case and recovery of seized contraband article from the petitioner. The rigour under Section 37(1)(b) of the Act would, therefore, be applicable to the case on hand. The petitioner who hails from Kerala in his confession statement, has admitted that he was purchasing contraband article from accused no.2 named in the present case who is absconding. He - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32234 CRL.P No. 2632 of 2026 has also stated that even earlier he had purchased contraband article from accused no.2 and had sold them. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the prayer made by the petitioner for grant of regular bail, at this stage, cannot be entertained. Accordingly, petition is dismissed. Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE KK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 51