MOHAMMEDJAFAR KHAN ALIAS FARDIN S/O RAJAMOHAMMEDKHAN ALIAS AHMEDKHAN PATHAN v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
CRL.P/104497/2025 · 2026-01-19
V Srishananda
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 53686 (KAR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 53686 (KAR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
- 1 -
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:476 CRL.P No. 104497 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 104497 OF 2025 (438(CR.PC)/482(BNSS)) BETWEEN:
MOHAMMEDJAFAR KHAN @ FARDIN S/O. RAJAMOHAMMEDKHAN @ AHMEDKHAN PATHAN AGE 21 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE, R/O. GUDAGERI ONI, HANAGAL TOWN, DIST. HAVERI 581104. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. K.M. SHIRALLI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH BENDIGERI POLICE STATION HUBBALLI, R/BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENCH DHARWAD. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. P.N. HATTI, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF BNSS, 2023, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE INVESTIGATION OFFICER, IN-CHARGE OF BENDIGERI PS CR.NO.66/2025, SUBSEQUENTLY NUMBERED AS SPL NDPS NO.17/2025 REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 20 (b)(ii)(B) OF NARCOTIC DRUGS AND PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES ACT, 1985 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT COURT AND SPECIAL COURT DHARWAD TO RELEASE THIS PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.5 ON BAIL, IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST, IN THE ABOVE CASE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench
- 2 -
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:476 CRL.P No. 104497 of 2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA)
1. Heard Sri K. M. Shiralli, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri P. N. Hatti, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent. 2. The petitioner is arrayed as Accused No. 5 in Crime No.66 of 2025, subsequently numbered as Spl. NDPS Case No.17/2025, for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (for short ‘ the NDPS Act’). 3. Accused Nos.1 to 3 were arrested, and based on their voluntary statements, the present petitioner has been implicated as accused No.5. Apprehending arrest at the hands of the Investigating Agency, the petitioner filed an application seeking anticipatory bail in Crl.Misc. No.256 of
2025. 4. The learned Special Judge, after considering the objections and noting that the seized NDPS was of
- 3 -
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:476 CRL.P No. 104497 of 2025
commercial quantity, rejected the anticipatory bail application. 5. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner is now before this Court. 6.
Sri K. M. Shiralli, learned counsel for the petitioner, reiterating the grounds urged in the petition, contended that, according to the prosecution itself, the present petitioner was not involved at the inception of the incident. It is only based on the voluntary statements given by the co-accused that the petitioner has been arrayed as accused No. 5. 7. He submitted that the petitioner's name does not appear as an accused in the charge sheet and that he has been wrongly shown as accused No.5. Accordingly, he sought the grant of anticipatory bail. 8. He further contended that the petitioner is no way connected with the incident, and that the police have unnecessarily implicated him solely on the basis of the voluntary statements of the co-accused. Therefore, he urged that anticipatory bail be granted to the petitioner. - 4 -
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:476 CRL.P No. 104497 of 2025
9. Per contra, Sri.P.N.Hatti, learned High Court Government Pleader, opposed the grant of anticipatory bail, contending that the very fact that four alias names are mentioned in the cause title in respect of the petitioner indicates that he is attempting to evade the clutches of law by giving different names to suit his convenience. 10. He further contended that the seized ganja is of commercial quantity, and therefore, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary. 11. It was also submitted that the petitioner has not been arrayed solely on the basis of the voluntary statements of the co-accused. In matters of this nature, the statements of co-accused cannot be lightly disregarded, since such activities are generally conducted in consultation among various participants, including the supplier, drug peddler, and the person who directly sells the ganja to others. Consequently, to ascertain the exact involvement of the present petitioner in the incident, custodial interrogation is considered necessary. - 5 -
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:476 CRL.P No. 104497 of 2025
12.
He would also contend that the Investigating Agency did not have any previous enmity or animosity against the petitioner so as to falsely implicate him in the incident. Therefore, it was submitted that the application for anticipatory bail should be rejected. 13. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court has perused the material on record meticulously. 14. On such perusal, it is crystal clear that the petitioner has been shown as an absconding accused in the charge sheet. Whether petitioner was involved in the incident or not cannot be decided by this Court, particularly while considering a request for anticipatory bail, which cannot be treated as a mini-trial. 15. As rightly contended on behalf of the prosecution, having regard to the fact that the seized NDPS is of commercial quantity, the Court must exercise extra caution while considering the anticipatory bail request. 16. Moreover, whether the petitioner is indeed the person named as accused No.5 in the charge sheet cannot be determined at this stage. - 6 -
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:476 CRL.P No. 104497 of 2025
17. If the petitioner is able to satisfy the trial court or the Investigating Officer, upon surrender, that he is not the person named as accused No.5, he may seek appropriate relief by filing a supplementary report as contemplated under Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C.
18. While reserving liberty for the petitioner to establish that he is not accused No.5, this Court is of the considered opinion that the request for anticipatory bail cannot be entertained at this stage, especially since accused No.5 has been shown as an absconding accused in the charge sheet. 19. Accordingly, the following: ORDER The petition is dismissed. Sd/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE
AC CT-CMU LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 14