Pallulabid Ahamad Arimutta Vs State by NCB (Karnataka High Court)
Summary: The Karnataka High Court considered a regular bail petition filed by Pallulabid Ahamad Arimutta and Mohammed Majid Saleem under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in proceedings involving Sections 8(c), 20(b), 21, 22, 28 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The Narcotics Control Bureau alleged that on 22 March 2019, two other accused persons, who were preparing to travel to Doha, were intercepted and found in possession of 965 grams of amphetamine, 30 grams of cocaine and 4.525 kilograms of hashish. The petitioners, arrayed as accused Nos. 3 and 4, were subsequently arrested on the basis of voluntary statements made by the initially arrested accused and identification through photographs.
REad SC Judgment in this case: SC Cancels NDPS Bail of Accused A-2; Karnataka HC Bail Order for A-3 and A-4 Explained
The High Court observed that no narcotic drugs had been recovered from either petitioner. Apart from the voluntary statements of accused Nos. 1 and 2 and statements attributed to the petitioners themselves, the prosecution had not produced other material connecting accused Nos. 3 and 4 with the alleged offences. The Court considered that the prosecution would have to establish the connection through evidence at trial. In these circumstances, it held that the rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act was not attracted to the petitioners’ bail applications and that they were entitled to relief under Section 439 CrPC.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the petition and directed the release of both petitioners on bail, subject to stringent conditions. Each petitioner was required to execute a personal bond of ₹1 lakh with two sureties, refrain from tampering with prosecution witnesses, attend court hearings, obtain permission before leaving the trial court’s jurisdiction and report weekly to the investigating officer for the prescribed period. The order was passed on 16 September 2019 by Justice K. N. Phaneendra in Criminal Petition No. 4462 of 2019. The decision concerned bail at the pretrial stage and did not determine the petitioners’ guilt or innocence.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned special counsel for the respondent. Perused the records.
2. The learned special counsel for the respondent-NCB has also filed the statement of objections.
3. The brief factual matrix of the case are that, on 22.03.2019, on the basis of credible information, the respondent-NCB team has arrested accused Nos.1 and 2, who were about to travel Doha by Oman Airways and seized 965 gm. of amphetamine, 30 gms. of cocaine and 4.525 kg. of hashish from the possession of the accused Nos.1 and 2. The petitioner Nos.1 & 2 are arraigned as accused Nos.3 and 4 in NCBF No.48/1/3/2019/BZU (CIS No.288/2019) for the offence punishable under Sections 8(c) read with 20(b), 21, 22, 28 and 29 of NDPS Act. It appears, on the basis of voluntary statement of accused No.1, these two petitioners (A3 & A4) were nabbed by the respondent-police. However, there is absolutely no recovery of narcotic drugs at the instance of these two petitioners (A3 & A4). It is only on the basis of voluntary statement of accused No.1 and also on identification of the photographs of the petitioners (A3 & A4) by accused No.1 & 2, these petitioners have been arrested and they have also in their voluntary statement have stated that, they have committed the said alleged offences.
4. Looking to the above said facts and circumstances of the case, except the voluntary statement of accused No.1 & 2 and the petitioners herein (A3 and A4), there is no material available with the prosecution to connect the Petitioners herein (A3 & A4) with the alleged accusation of Accused Nos.1 and 2. Prosecution has to prove that how these two accused persons are connected to this case, beyond all reasonable doubt at the stage of evidence during trial. Therefore, under the above said circumstances, the rigor of Section 37 of NDPS Act is not attracted in so far as this case is concerned. Hence, I am of the opinion that, particularly, Section 439 of Cr.P.C., the petitioners are entitled to be enlarged on bail, on certain stringent conditions. Hence, the following,-
ORDER
The Petition is allowed. Consequently, the petitioners (A3 and A4) shall be released on bail in connection with case in NCBF No.48/1/3/2019/BZU for the offence punishable under Sections 8(c) read with 20(b), 21, 22, 28 and 29 of NDPS Act, now pending on the file of XXXIII Addl. City Civil and Special Judge for the NDPS Cases at Bengaluru, subject to the following conditions, :
i. Each of the petitioners shall execute their respective personal bonds for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-(One Lakh only) with two sureties for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.
ii. The petitioners shall not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses.
iii. The petitioners shall appear before the jurisdictional court on all the future hearing dates unless exempted by the court for any genuine cause.
iv. The petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court without prior permission, till the case registered against them is disposed of.
v. The petitioners shall mark their attendance once in a week i.e., on every Sunday between 10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m. before the Investigating Officer for a period of two months or till the charge sheet is filed, whichever is earlier.
