w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Ashok Kumar Mishra @ Ashok Mishra v/s The State of Karnataka, Rep. by The Addl. State Public Prosecutor, Kalaburagi

    Criminal Petition No. 201451 of 2021

    Decided On, 12 October 2021

    At, High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench OF Kalaburagi

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

    For the Petitioner: Arunkumar Amargundappa, Advocate. For the Respondent: Sharanabasappa M. Patil, Advocate.



Judgment Text

(Prayer: This Petition is filed Under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying to allow this petition and enlarge the petitioner on Bail in Spl. (NDPS) Case No.6/2018 (Cr.No.58/2015) registered by the Respondent Excise Police Vijayapura for the alleged offences punishable Under Sections 8(B), 8(C) and 15, 17, 20 and 25 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, which is pending before the Prl.Judge/Spl. Judge at Vijayapura.)

1. This petition is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking enlargement of the petitioner on bail in Spl. (NDPS) Case No.6/2018 pending trial before the Prl. Judge/Spl. Judge, at Vijayapura.

2. It is seen that on 28.04.2015, based on credible information that narcotic substances were transported in a vehicle bearing No.HR.55/L.7041, the vehicle was checked and narcotic substance was found. Based on the aforesaid, a prosecution was launched against the petitioner and other co-accused for the offences punishable under Sections 8 (b), 8(c) and 15, 17, 20 and 25 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The petitioner herein was employed as a supervisor at Rishab Motors Pvt Ltd., Co. which allegedly owned the vehicle, that was transporting the narcotic substance.

3. It is stated that after the case was committed to the Special Court, the prosecution had led evidence and when the case was set down for recording 313 Statement of the accused, the petitioner had absconded. Therefore, the case against the petitioner was split up and the Trial Court proceeded the case against the other co-accused in Spl.(NDPS) Case No.4/2016. The Trial Court after recording the evidence, passed a judgment dated 15.06.2018 and acquitted the other co-accused from the offences alleged. The petitioner was thereafter arrested and brought to book. An application filed by the petitioner under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for bail was rejected primarily on the ground that the petitioner had failed to appear before the Court from the year 2018-21. The Trial Court also noticed that the petitioner was a resident of New Delhi and therefore felt that if he is released on bail, he is likely to abscond. Being aggrieved by the same, the present petition is filed.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since co-accused were acquitted of the offences, no fruitful purpose would be served in keeping the petitioner behind bars. The learned counsel for the petitioner undertook to furnish surety to the satisfaction of the Court and also undertook to abide by the conditions that may be imposed by this Court.

5. The learned High Court Government Pleader submitted that the petitioner had avoided to appear before the Court from the year 2018-21 and therefore securing the petitioner would be a difficult task.

6. I have considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties.

7. It is not in dispute that other co-accused are acquitted in Spl. (NDPS) Case No.4/2016. However, the case against the petitioner in Spl. (NDPS) Caser No.6/2018 is outstanding and a split up charge sheet is pending against the petitioner. Therefore, it was incumbent upon the petitioner to appear before the Trial Court. However, now that the petitioner is brought to book, he cannot be kept behind bars and the apprehension raised by the learned High Court Government Pleader can suitably be taken care of by a requiring a local surety to the satisfaction of the Trial Court and also to direct the petitioner to surrender his passport before the Trial Court. In addition the petitioner can be directed to appear before the jurisdictional police station until the case is concluded in Spl. (NDPS) Case No.6/2018.

8. In that view of the matter, the petition is allowed. The petitioner is enlarged on bail subject to the following;

CONDITIONS

(i) The petitioner shall furnish a local surety and one personal bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

(ii) The petitioner shall surrender his passport before the Trial Court.

(iii) The petitioner shall appear before the

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

jurisdictional police station once in a week on every Saturday. (iv) The petitioner shall without fail appear before the Trial Court on all dates of hearing. The Trial Court is directed to expedite the recording of 313 Statement of the petitioner and take steps to expedite the case itself in view of acquittal of other co- accused, if no fresh prosecution evidence is necessary in so far as charge against the petitioner is concerned.
O R