- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010420982026 NC: 2026:KHC:45752 CRL.P No. 8954 of 2026 C/W CRL.P No. 9004 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8954 OF 2026 C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9004 OF 2026 IN CRL.P No. 8954/2026: BETWEEN: SHRI MOHAMMED NISHAD AGED 24 YEARS SON OF SHRI. MOHAMED KUNNI RESIDING AT KOZHIPALLY HOUSE MUKKAM, KOZHIKODE KERALA - 673 662. …PETITIONER (BY SRI ADITHYA C. SHUKAPURI, ADV.) AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA BY YELAHANKA NEW TOWN P.S. REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTION, HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU - 560 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI RANGASWAMY R, HCGP) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439 CR.PC (FILED U/S 483 BNSS) PRAYING TO ALLOW THE PRESENT PETITION AND RELEASE THE PETITIONER ON REGULAR BAIL IN CRIME NO. 146 OF 2026 REGISTERED AT YELAHANKA NEW TOWN POLICE STATION UNDER SECTION 8(C) AND 20(b)(ii) (c) OF THE NARCOTIC DRUGS AND PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES ACT, 1985. Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010420982026 NC: 2026:KHC:45752 CRL.P No. 8954 of 2026 C/W CRL.P No. 9004 of 2026 IN CRL.P NO. 9004/2026: BETWEEN: SHRI ADESH P DILEEP AGED 19 YEARS SON OF SHRI DILEEP RESIDING AT PATTALY HOUSE DUBAI MOOLA, PONJANAM POST KATTUR, THRISSUR, KERALA - 680 702. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI ADITHYA C. SHUKAPURI, ADV.) AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA BY YELAHANKA NEW TOWN P.S. REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU - 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 RELEASE THE PETITIONER ON REGULAR BAIL IN CRIME NO.146/2026 ON 7tH ADDL CMM COURT, REGISTERED AT YELAHANKA NEW TOWN POLICE STATION U/S 8(C) AND 20(b)(ii)(c) OF THE NDPS ACT 1985. THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY ORAL ORDER 1. Accused nos.1 & 2 in Crime No.146/2026 registered by Yelahanka New Town Police Station, Bengaluru City, for the offences punishable under Sections 8(C) & 20(b)(ii)(c) of the - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010420982026 NC: 2026:KHC:45752 CRL.P No. 8954 of 2026 C/W CRL.P No. 9004 of 2026 NDPS Act, are before this Court in these two petitions filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023, seeking regular bail. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 3. FIR in Crime No.146/2026 was registered by Yelahanka New Town Police Station, Bengaluru City, for the aforesaid offences against the petitioners herein based on the first information received on 03.04.2026 from Parashuram Balannavar - Police Officer attached to Yelahanka New Town Police Station. During the course of investigation, accused nos.1 & 2 were arrested on 03.04.2026 and from their possession, contraband article allegedly ganja totally weighing 21.125 Kgs. was recovered and seized under a panchanama. Subsequently, they were produced before the Court and remanded to judicial custody. Their bail application filed before the jurisdictional Sessions Court in Crl. Misc. No.4174/2026 was rejected on 08.06.2026. Therefore, petitioners are before this Court. 4. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners having reiterated the grounds urged in the petitions, submits that - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010420982026 NC: 2026:KHC:45752 CRL.P No. 8954 of 2026 C/W CRL.P No. 9004 of 2026 seized contraband article allegedly ganja includes stem, flowers, leaves, etc., and therefore, it cannot be considered as 'ganja' within the meaning of Section 2(iii)(b) of the NDPS Act. He submits that seizure of contraband article is from the bags found in a public place, and therefore, it cannot be said that petitioners were in conscious possession of the contraband article. He submits that petitioners have no criminal antecedents. Section 50 of the NDPS Act has not been complied in the present case. Therefore, the rigor under Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act, cannot be made applicable. In support of his arguments, he has placed reliance on the judgments in the case of AWADHESH YADAV VS STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI - 2023 SCC OnLine Del 7732, and RAVINA KUMARI VS STATE OF NCT DELHI - 2024 SCC OnLine Del 6748. 5. Per contra, learned HCGP who has opposed the petitions, submits that seized contraband article is of commercial quantity and investigation of the case is still under progress. There is no seizure of contraband article from the person of the accused, and therefore, there is no requirement for complying of Section 50 of the Act. He, accordingly, prays to dismiss the petition. - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010420982026 NC: 2026:KHC:45752 CRL.P No. 8954 of 2026 C/W CRL.P No. 9004 of 2026 6. Material on record would go to show that based on credible information received to the effect that accused nos.1 & 2 with an intention to illegally gain money were making attempts to sell contraband article ganja to the students and public, FIR was registered against accused nos.1 & 2 in Crime No.146/2026 and in the raid that was conducted subsequently, they were apprehended and from their possession, contraband article 'ganja', totally weighing 21.125 Kgs. was recovered and seized under a panchanama. A reading of the recovery panchanama would indicate that contraband article was found in two bags which were near the place where accused nos.1 & 2 were standing when the raid was conducted after registration of FIR. 7. Investigation of the case is still under progress. The sample of the contraband article drawn in compliance of the requirement of Section 52A of the NDPS Act, has been forwarded to the FSL and report is awaited. Therefore, at this stage, it is premature to arrive at a conclusion that seized contraband article is not ganja, merely for the reason that in - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010420982026 NC: 2026:KHC:45752 CRL.P No. 8954 of 2026 C/W CRL.P No. 9004 of 2026 the seized contraband article even the leaves, flowers and other parts of ganja plant are found. 8. Material on record would go to show that contraband article has been seized in the present case from the plastic bags which were found near the place where accused nos.1 & 2 were standing when the raid was conducted. A reading of the recovery mahazar would go to show that no article has been recovered from the person of the accused persons, and therefore, there is no requirement of complying Section 50 of the NDPS Act. 9. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has failed to point out non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act, at the stage of recovering contraband article or at the stage of drawing samples of the same. Since the contraband article is of commercial quantity, the rigor under Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act, would be applicable in the present case. Petitioners hail from Kerala State and they are found in possession of contraband article of commercial quantity in Bengaluru. Involvement of other accused persons cannot be ruled out, and - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010420982026 NC: 2026:KHC:45752 CRL.P No. 8954 of 2026 C/W CRL.P No. 9004 of 2026 therefore, at this stage, their prayer for grant of regular bail cannot be entertained. 10. In Awadhesh Yadav's case supra, bail application of the accused was considered by the High Court after the charge sheet was filed in a case where seized contraband article totally weighed 21.084 Kg. of ganja. In the said case, ganja seized from the possession of petitioner - Awadhesh Yadav, was 828 grams and there was subsequent seizure of ganja of 21.08 Kgs. from the co-accused - Tarkeshwar Prashad. Considering the aforesaid aspects of the matter, it was held in the said case that the rigor under Section 37 of the Act cannot be made strictly applicable. 11. In Ravina Kumari's case supra, the contraband article ganja recovered contained grass like flowery leafy material along with its stem. Bail application was filed in the said case after the charge sheet was filed and considering the contents of the contraband article, it was held that ganja seized in the said case cannot be considered as commercial quantity. - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010420982026 NC: 2026:KHC:45752 CRL.P No. 8954 of 2026 C/W CRL.P No. 9004 of 2026 12. In the present case, the report from the FSL is yet to be received. Therefore, the aforesaid judgments cannot be made applicable to the facts of this case at this stage. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the prayer made by the petitioners for grant of regular bail needs to be rejected at this stage. Accordingly, the following order: 13. Petitions are dismissed, with liberty to the petitioners to file fresh bail applications before the jurisdictional Sessions Court after charge sheet is filed. Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE KK