Case title: MR. SHAIK MOHAMMED HUJEEF VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case no: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3506 OF 2024
Dated: 16th May , 2024
Quorum: THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
Fact of the case:
The background of the case is Mr. Shaik Mohammed Hujeef, the petitioner, was arrested and placed in judicial custody following a raid conducted by the police based on credible information received on 10th March 2024. The police received information alleging that the petitioner was involved in selling Ganja from his residence. A raid was subsequently conducted, and during the raid, 3 kg 49 grams of Ganja worth Rs. 2,40,000/- was seized from the first floor of the petitioner’s premises. Moreover, an amount of Rs. 590/- along with 10 plastic covers was recovered from the petitioner during the raid. The petitioner filed a Criminal Petition (CRL.P) under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) seeking bail in connection with Crime No. 35/2024 of Davanagere Police Station, registered under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act.
Issues framed by court:
- Whether the Trial Court’s rejection of the petitioner’s bail application was erroneous in light of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
- Whether the quantity of Ganja seized (3 kg 49 grams) constitutes an intermediate quantity, and if so, does it warrant bail.
- Whether the petitioner’s custody for 66 days, lack of criminal antecedents, and the non-receipt of the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report justify granting bail.
- What conditions, if any, should be imposed upon the petitioner if bail is granted.
Legal provisions:
Section 439 of CrPC: Deals with the power of the High Court and the Court of Sessions to grant bail.
Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act: Pertains to the offense of possessing or dealing with a small quantity of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances.
Contentions of Appellant:
Appellant contended that the Trial Court’s rejection of the bail application was erroneous, citing Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Argued that the seized quantity of Ganja (3 kg 49 grams) was an intermediate quantity, not constituting a commercial quantity, thus warranting bail. Asserted non-compliance with provisions such as Sections 42, 50, 52, 55, and 57 of the NDPS Act in the seizure process. Highlighted the petitioner’s custody for 66 days, lack of prior criminal record, and the non-receipt of the FSL report as grounds for bail.
Contentions of Respondents:
Respondent argued that the Ganja was recovered at the instance of the petitioner from premises owned by him, implying his involvement. Pointed out that the FSL report was pending, and hence, the petitioner was not entitled to bail. Emphasized the importance of preventing drug-related offenses and the need to keep the petitioner in custody pending investigation.
Court analysis& Judgement:
The court considered the seized quantity of Ganja (3 kg 49 grams) as an intermediate quantity, not constituting a commercial quantity. This factored into the decision to grant bail. The petitioner’s 66 days in custody, coupled with the absence of any prior criminal record, were significant factors in favor of granting bail. The court noted the petitioner’s contention regarding non-compliance with various provisions of the NDPS Act in the seizure process, which further supported the grant of bail. Bail was granted with stringent conditions, including executing a personal bond, refraining from tampering with witnesses, appearing before the court as required, and not leaving the jurisdiction without court permission.
Therefore, the court granted bail to the petitioner considering the nature of the seized quantity, the petitioner’s custodial period, lack of criminal antecedents, and alleged non-compliance with NDPS Act provisions. The conditions imposed were aimed at ensuring compliance and preventing any interference with the investigation.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement Reviewed By- Antara Ghosh
