- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20512 CRL.P No. 15181 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 15181 OF 2025 BETWEEN: STATE OF KARNATAKA BY CYBER ECONOMIC AND NARCOTICS CRIME POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. B. PUSHPALATHA, ADDL.SPP) AND: SRI. MOHAMMED AMEEN RAAFI S/O MOHAMMED BASHEER AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS R/A DOOR NO.2-14-1236, BEJANI NEW ROAD, NEAR BEJAI CHURCH, BEJAI, MANGALURU, D.K. DISTRICT. …RESPONDENT (RESPONDENT SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439(2) OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 483(3) BNSS) PRAYING TO 1. ALLOW THIS PETITION 2.CANCEL OR SET ASIDE THE BAIL ORDER DATED 21.03.2025 PASSED IN SPL.CASE NO.259/2024 ON THE FILE OF Digitally signed by PADMAVATHI B K Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20512 CRL.P No. 15181 of 2025 PRL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE D.K MANGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 8(c), 22(c) OF NDPS ACT R/W 34 OF IPC IN CR.NO.68/2024 REGISTERED BY THE CEN P.S. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioner - State is before this Court seeking cancellation of regular bail granted to the respondent - accused No.1 in Spl. Case No.259/2024 registered for offences punishable under Sections 8(c) and 22(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (‘the Act’, for short) r/w Section 34 of the IPC. 2. Heard Smt. B. Pushpalatha, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor, appearing for the petitioner. The respondent, though served long ago, remains unrepresented even today. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20512 CRL.P No. 15181 of 2025 3. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows: The petitioner is the State and the respondent is accused No.1. The respondent along with other accused gets embroiled in a crime in Crime No.68/2024 for the aforementioned offences. On 15-05-2024, the police receive credible information regarding the possession and sale of drugs. The police seize 270 grams of MDMA from the possession of the accused and thereafter, the accused are arrested. The police conduct investigation and file a charge sheet against the accused, which is pending before the concerned Court in Spl.C.No.259/2024. The respondent - accused No.1 then approaches the concerned Court seeking regular bail, which is granted by a detailed order dated 21-03-2025. The petitioner – State is now before this Court seeking cancellation of the bail granted to the respondent – accused No.1. 4. Learned Additional State Public Prosecutor appearing for the petitioner would submit that the respondent is involved in committing a serious offence and was arrested upon being found in possession of 270 grams of MDMA crystal. Learned Additional State Public Prosecutor would further submit - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20512 CRL.P No. 15181 of 2025 that there is proof, although prima facie, that the respondent has committed the offences as aforementioned. Thus, would seek cancellation of the bail granted to the respondent. 5. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor and have perused the material available on record. 6. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The respondent – accused No.1 gets embroiled in a crime for the aforementioned offences. The accused in the subject crime are arrested by the jurisdictional Police. The respondent – accused No.1 then seeks bail before the concerned Court, which comes to be granted by an order dated 21-03-2025. The order reads as follows: “REASONS 6. Point No.1: On 15.05.2024 at 3.00 pm the PSI, CCB, Mangaluru received information about possessing and sale of MDMA in a Toyota Corolla car bearing reg. No. KA-03-MC-9481 at Fiza Mall ground, opposite to K.S. Hegde Hospital, Deralakatte. Thereafter, sent requisition to ACP, CCB for permission to conduct and obtained permission letter bearing No. 04/ಎ/ಅಾರಪತ//ಮಂ.ನ./2024. Thereafter, along with panchas, staff proceeded to the place of information and reached by 4.20 pm and found black - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20512 CRL.P No. 15181 of 2025 colour Toyota Corolla car bearing reg. No. KA-03- MC- 9481 parked in the corner of Fiza Mall ground and 4 persons sited in it. After confirming conducted raid and catch-hold Mohammad Amin Raafi, Mohammad Sinan Abdulla, Mohammad Nawman, Mohammad Shafeel. On inquiry they revealed about keeping MDMA in a dashboard of the car. Thereafter, arrested the 4 persons and intimated about the arrest to Mohammad Basheer, Salman Parish, Shamina, Abdul Khader over the mobiles. Thereafter, recorded the statements of the accused. As the accused have kept MDMA, mobiles, weighing scale, empty zip lock plastic covers kept in the car, he decided not to conduct search of person of accused in the presence of Gazetted Officer. The accused Mohammad Amin Rafi produced 270 gram of brown colour MDMA crystal, mobile, digital scale, 90 empty small zip lock plastic covers. He packed them in cloth molded envelop cover separately and marked them as 1, 2, 3, 4. Thereafter, shown car bearing reg. No. KA-03-MC-9481. The PSI seized it by giving mark 5. Thereafter, the accused Mohammad Sinan has produced mobile kept in dashboard of the car. The PSI seized it and packed in a cloth molded envelop and sealed by giving mark 6. Thereafter, the accused Mohammad Nawman has produced mobile kept in back seat of the car. The PSI seized it and packed in a cloth molded envelop and sealed by giving mark 7. Thereafter, the accused Mohammad Shafeel has produced mobile kept in back seat of the car. The PSI seized it and packed in a cloth molded envelop and sealed by giving mark 8. The PSI, CCB seized them under mahazar and handed over to the jurisdictional police station. The SHO, CEN P.S. on the basis of report of the PSI, CCB registered FIR in Crime No.68/2024 for the offences punishable under Section 8(c), 22(c) of NDPS Act and produced the accused before the Court. 7. It is contended that he is innocent charges leveled against him and he is law abiding citizen and he has been falsely implicated in the case. The police except mobile have not seized from possession of this accused. There is non-compliance of Sec.50 of NDPS Act. The accused is not required for investigation. Even the seized contraband is having commercial quantity, - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20512 CRL.P No. 15181 of 2025 the Court is empowered to release the accused. He is resident of Mangaluru and residing with family members. He is ready to abide by the conditions that may be imposed on him. Hence, prayed for grant of bail. 8. The Public Prosecutor filed objections contending that on 15.05.2024 the CCB Police on credible information conducted raid and catch-hold these accused and another and seized 270 gram of MDMA, mobiles, digital scale, empty plastic covers, car and on the basis of raid report FIR has been registered by CEN Police. The accused involved in sale of contraband by possessing illegally. The contraband seized is commercial quantity, hence Sec.37 of NDPS Act is applicable. The investigation of the case is in progress. There are reasonable grounds to believe commission of the offence by the accused. If the accused is granted bail, there are chances of him absconding, coming in the way of investigation, tampering of witnesses, flee from justice. Therefore, at this stage it is not proper to grant bail to the accused. Hence, prayed for rejecting the bail. 9. The counsel for accused submits that the police have falsely implicated the accused in this case. The police took the accused from the house without information and without seizing the contraband and fixed in this case. Since 16.05.2024 accused is in custody. The accused Nos.2 to 4 are granted bail by Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Crl. Petition No. 12706/2024, Crl. Petition No.490/2025 and Crl. Petition No.555/2025. The allegation made against this accused is also similar with accused Nos.2 to 4. The accused No.1 also entitled for bail on parity ground. The accused is not required for custodial interrogation and he is ready to abide by the conditions that may be imposed on him. 10. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that there are reasonable grounds to believe commission of the offence by this accused. The police have seized commercial quantity of contraband MDMA from possession of the accused and others. Sec.37 of NDPS - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20512 CRL.P No. 15181 of 2025 Act will applicable. The accused has not made out any justifiable grounds for grant of bail. 11. In this case the PSI, CCB has received credible information about possessing and sale of contraband by 4 persons in a Car No. KA-03-MC-9481 near Fiza Mall ground, opposite to K.S. Hegde Hospital, Deralakatte. The information is with regard to a cognizable offence. However, has not recorded the same in writing in the register concerned and forthwith sent its copy to its immediate official superior before proceeding to take action in terms of (a) to (d) of Sec.42 of NDPS Act. The PSI has not forwarded the said copy of the recorded information to his superior officer. In this case the PSI stated that he brought to the notice of the information to his superior officer i.e. ACP and obtained authorization letter No. 04/ಎ ಎ ಎ ಎ/ಅಾರಪತ ಅಾರಪತ ಅಾರಪತ ಅಾರಪತ/   /ಮಂ ಮಂ ಮಂ ಮಂ.ನನನನ./2024 dated 15.05.2024. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Crl. Petition No.11097/2023 observed that the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Thofan Singh Vs State of Tamilnadu [(2021) 5 SCC 1] held that under Sec. 42(2) the empowered officer who takes down any information in writing or records the grounds under proviso to Sec.42(1) should forthwith send a copy thereof to his immediate official superior. If there is non-compliance of this provision the same affects the prosecution case.To that extent it is mandatory. The material on record would go to show that said mandatory requirement of law has not been complied it. Further, the information received by PSI is specific and in respect of cognizable offence, but has not made any effort to lodge FIR with jurisdictional police. If any information disclosing cognizable offence is led before an officer in-charge of police station satisfying requirement of Section 154(1) of Cr.P.C. the police officer has no other option except to register a case on the basis of such information, the provisions of Section 154 is mandatory and concerned officer is duty bound to register case on the basis of information disclosing a cognizable offence. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Lalita Kumari Vs Government of U.P. and others [2013 (4) Crimes 243 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20512 CRL.P No. 15181 of 2025 (SC)] held that discretion, option, latitude is allowed to police in matter of registration of FIR, it can have serious consequences on public order situation and can also adversely affects, rights of victims including violating their fundamental right to equality. In this case the PSI, CCB who received specific information about commission of cognizable offence has not made any effort to forward said information for registering FIR. Further, the PSI has not reduced the information into writing in the register concerned, but directly sent letter to ACP seeking permission to conduct raid and by getting the order he proceeded to the place of information at 3.00 pm. Therefore, it is violation of Sec.42 of NDPS Act. The PSI has received information from informant about cognizable offence has not take down in writing that any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance or controlled substance in respect of which an offence punishable under this Act. 12. In the present case the PSI, CCB though confirmed about possessing of contraband by accused has not issued notice under Sec. 50 of NDPS Act explaining the right of search by Gazetted Officer or Magistrate. Simply it is stated that as the accused kept contraband MDMA, mobile phones, scale, empty plastic covers in a car he decided not to hold search of person of accused by Gazetted Officer or Magistrate. The PSI not only seized contraband, but also seized 5 mobiles, digital scale, 90 empty zip lock covers. It cannot be accepted that mobiles were kept in the dashboard of car. In Criminal Petition No.8685/2023 it is observed by Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka that the seizure from the person of accused compliance of requirement under Sec.50 of NDPS Act becomes mandatory. The same principles also applicable in the case in hand. 13. Apart from this, the alleged incident took place on 15.05.2024 and this accused has been arrested on the same day. Since then he is in judicial custody. The IO has completed investigation and - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20512 CRL.P No. 15181 of 2025 submitted charge sheet. The further custodial detention of the accused is not required for the purpose of interrogation or further investigation. In this case the accused Nos.2 to 4 were granted bail by Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. The allegation against this accused is also similar to that of A2 to A4. The case is at the stage of HBC. The IO has cited 37 witnesses. The trial of the case will take time. No purpose will be served in keeping the accused in custody. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka had granting bail accused Nos.2 to 4 observed that there is non-compliance of Sec.52, 57, 57A of NDPS Act. The seized contraband is Methamphetamine and same is seized the car in which this and other accused arrived to that spot. The accused is a student and he do not have any criminal antecedent. Therefore, the rigor under Sec. 37(1)(b)(ii) of NDPS Act cannot be very strictly made applicable. In this case also the accused is a student pursuing professional course. This accused is to be granted bail on parity ground. The apprehension of prosecution about tampering of witnesses, absconding, flee from justice, coming in the way of investigation/trial can be safeguarded by imposing conditions. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that it is just and reasonable to grant bail. Hence, for these reasons, this Court answered Point No.1 in the Affirmative. 14. Point No.2: In the result, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER The application filed under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code by accused No.1 Mohammed Ameen Raafi is allowed. The accused No.1 is ordered to be released on bail on execution of personal bond for Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties for like-sum. The accused shall not threat, tamper the prosecution witnesses. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20512 CRL.P No. 15181 of 2025 The accused shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without prior permission. The accused shall not involve in similar offences in future. The accused shall appear before the Court regularly on all hearing dates without fail.” (Emphasis added) The concerned Court grants bail to the respondent – accused No.1 for non-compliance of Sections 42 and 50 of the Act. Section 42 requires the empowered officer to record the information received by him in writing. The empowered Officer in the case at hand has not recorded the credible information, which was received by him, in writing. Section 50 mandates search of persons to be conducted in the presence of the Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer. The concerned Officer seizes the drugs from the possession of the accused and decides not to search them in the presence of the Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer. 7. The issue now would be whether the bail that is granted to the respondent can now be cancelled by this Court in the light of the aforementioned facts. It becomes apposite to - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20512 CRL.P No. 15181 of 2025 refer to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of AJWAR v. WASEEM1, wherein it is held as follows: “…. …. …. 27. It is equally well settled that bail once granted, ought not to be cancelled in a mechanical manner. However, an unreasoned or perverse order of bail is always open to interference by the superior court.If there are serious allegations against the accused, even if he has not misused the bail granted to him, such an order can be cancelled by the same Court that has granted the bail. Bail can also be revoked by a superior court if it transpires that the courts below have ignored the relevant material available on record or not looked into the gravity of the offence or the impact on the society resulting in such an order. In P v. State of M.P. [P v. State of M.P., (2022) 15 SCC 211] decided by a three-Judge Bench of this Court [authored by one of us (Hima Kohli, J.)] has spelt out the considerations that must weigh with the Court for interfering in an order granting bail to an accused under Section 439(1)CrPC in the following words : (SCC p. 224, para 24) “24. As can be discerned from the above decisions, for cancelling bail once granted, the court must consider whether any supervening circumstances have arisen or the conduct of the accused post grant of bail demonstrates that it is no longer conducive to a fair trial to permit him to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during trial [Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana, (1995) 1 SCC 349 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 237] . To put it differently, in ordinary circumstances, this Court would be loathe to interfere with an order passed by the court below granting bail but if such an order is found to be illegal or perverse or premised on material that is irrelevant, then such an 1 2024 SCC OnLine SC 974 - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20512 CRL.P No. 15181 of 2025 order is susceptible to scrutiny and interference by the appellate court.” Considerations for setting aside bail orders 28. The considerations that weigh with the appellate court for setting aside the bail order on an application being moved by the aggrieved party include any supervening circumstances that may have occurred after granting relief to the accused, the conduct of the accused while on bail, any attempt on the part of the accused to procrastinate, resulting in delaying the trial, any instance of threats being extended to the witnesses while on bail, any attempt on the part of the accused to tamper with the evidence in any manner. We may add that this list is only illustrative and not exhaustive. However, the court must be cautious that at the stage of granting bail, only a prima facie case needs to be examined and detailed reasons relating to the merits of the case that may cause prejudice to the accused, ought to be avoided. Suffice it is to state that the bail order should reveal the factors that have been considered by the Court for granting relief to the accused. 29. In Jagjeet Singh [Jagjeet Singh v. Ashish Mishra, (2022) 9 SCC 321 : (2022) 3 SCC (Cri) 560] , a three-Judge Bench of this Court, has observed that the power to grant bail under Section 439CrPC is of wide amplitude and the High Court or a Sessions Court, as the case may be, is bestowed with considerable discretion while deciding an application for bail. But this discretion is not unfettered. The order passed must reflect due application of judicial mind following well-established principles of law. In ordinary course, courts would be slow to interfere with the order where bail has been granted by the courts below. But if it is found that such an order is illegal or perverse or based upon utterly irrelevant material, the appellate court would be well within its power to set aside and cancel the bail. (Also refer - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20512 CRL.P No. 15181 of 2025 : Puran v. Rambilas [Puran v. Rambilas, (2001) 6 SCC 338 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 1124] ; Narendra K. Amin v. State of Gujarat [Narendra K. Amin v. State of Gujarat, (2008) 13 SCC 584 : (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 813] .)” (Emphasis supplied) The Apex Court in the afore-quoted judgment holds that bail once granted cannot be cancelled in a mechanical manner. The concerned Court has granted bail to the respondent – accused No.1 on the score of non-compliance with the mandate of Sections 42 and 50 of the Act. In that light, this Court would not exercise its jurisdiction under Section 439(2) of the Cr.P.C in cancelling the bail granted to the petitioner. 8. With the aforesaid observations, the petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE BGN List No.: 3 Sl No.: 11