Karnataka High Court Grants Bail to Accused in NDPS Case Due to Non-Compliance with Section 50 of NDPS Act. The court held that failure to inform the accused of his right to be searched before a Magistrate or Gazetted Officer under Section 50 of the NDPS Act vitiates the seizure and entitles the accused to bail.

High Court: Karnataka High Court Bench: BENGALURU In Favour of Accused
  • 131
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, Roshan Kumar Mishra, filed a criminal petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) seeking regular bail in Crime No.143/2022 registered by Begur Police Station, Bengaluru, for an offence punishable under Section 20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). The case arose from a suo motu complaint on 31.05.2022, when the police received credible information that two persons were selling ganja and bhang near a vacant space adjacent to Q Grill Bar and Restaurant in Chikkabeguru. The police conducted a raid and allegedly seized 29 kgs of Bhang and 1.5 kgs of Ganja from the petitioner's possession. The petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody. The petitioner's counsel argued that the quantity of Ganja (1.5 kgs) was less than commercial quantity, and the seizure of Bhang (29 kgs) was not properly established. Additionally, the counsel contended that the mandatory provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act were not complied with, as the petitioner was not informed of his right to be searched before a Magistrate or Gazetted Officer. The State opposed the bail, arguing that the quantity of Bhang was commercial and that the petitioner was involved in drug trafficking. The court, after hearing both sides, observed that the seizure was made from a bag carried by the petitioner, which constitutes a personal search requiring compliance with Section 50. The police failed to inform the petitioner of his right to be searched before a Magistrate or Gazetted Officer, rendering the seizure illegal. The court also noted that the quantity of Ganja was less than commercial quantity, but the Bhang quantity was commercial. However, due to the procedural violation, the court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail. The court granted bail subject to conditions including furnishing a bond of Rs.1,00,000 with two sureties, reporting to the police station weekly, not tampering with evidence, and not leaving the jurisdiction without permission.

Headnote

A) Criminal Procedure Code - Bail - Section 439 CrPC - Regular Bail - Petitioner-accused sought bail for offence under Section 20(b) NDPS Act - Court considered the quantity of contraband (29 kgs Bhang, 1.5 kgs Ganja) and held that the quantity of Ganja was less than commercial quantity, but Bhang was commercial quantity - However, the court found non-compliance with Section 50 NDPS Act as the search was conducted without informing the accused of his right to be searched before a Magistrate or Gazetted Officer - Held that the accused is entitled to bail on stringent conditions (Paras 1-10).

B) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Section 20(b) - Commercial Quantity - Determination - The court noted that 29 kgs of Bhang falls within commercial quantity as per NDPS Act, but 1.5 kgs of Ganja is less than commercial quantity - However, the court did not base its decision solely on quantity but on procedural violation (Paras 4-6).

C) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Section 50 - Compliance - Personal Search - The court observed that the seizure was made from a bag carried by the accused, which is akin to personal search - The police failed to inform the accused of his right to be searched before a Magistrate or Gazetted Officer - Held that non-compliance with Section 50 vitiates the seizure and entitles the accused to bail (Paras 7-9).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the petitioner-accused is entitled to regular bail under Section 439 CrPC for an offence under Section 20(b) of the NDPS Act, considering the quantity of contraband and compliance with mandatory provisions.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The petition is allowed. The petitioner-accused is ordered to be released on bail in Crime No.143/2022 of Begur Police Station, subject to executing a bond of Rs.1,00,000 with two sureties, and conditions including reporting to the police station once a week, not tampering with evidence, and not leaving the jurisdiction without permission.

Law Points

  • Bail under Section 439 CrPC
  • NDPS Act Section 20(b)
  • Commercial quantity determination
  • Section 50 NDPS Act compliance
  • Personal search vs. bag search
  • Right to be informed of search
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2022 LawText (KAR) (08) 14

Criminal Petition No.6611 of 2022

2022-08-26

K. Natarajan

S. Manoj Kumar (for petitioner), R.D. Renukaradhya (HCGP for respondent)

Roshan Kumar Mishra

The State of Karnataka

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Criminal bail petition under Section 439 CrPC for offence under NDPS Act

Remedy Sought

Regular bail by the accused-petitioner

Filing Reason

Arrest and remand in Crime No.143/2022 for alleged possession of ganja and bhang

Issues

Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail under Section 439 CrPC for an offence under Section 20(b) NDPS Act? Whether the mandatory provisions of Section 50 NDPS Act were complied with during the search and seizure?

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner's counsel argued that the quantity of Ganja (1.5 kgs) is less than commercial quantity and the seizure of Bhang (29 kgs) is not properly established; also, Section 50 NDPS Act was not complied with as the accused was not informed of his right to be searched before a Magistrate or Gazetted Officer. State's counsel opposed bail, contending that the quantity of Bhang is commercial and the petitioner is involved in drug trafficking; the seizure was lawful.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the search of a bag carried by the accused amounts to a personal search under Section 50 of the NDPS Act, and failure to inform the accused of his right to be searched before a Magistrate or Gazetted Officer renders the seizure illegal, entitling the accused to bail.

Judgment Excerpts

The seizure was made from the bag carried by the petitioner which is akin to personal search and the police have not complied with Section 50 of NDPS Act. The petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

Procedural History

The petitioner was arrested on 31.05.2022 in Crime No.143/2022 for offence under Section 20(b) NDPS Act and remanded to judicial custody. He filed Criminal Petition No.6611/2022 under Section 439 CrPC for bail. The petition was heard and reserved on 17.08.2022, and order was passed on 26.08.2022.

Acts & Sections

  • Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 439
  • Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985: 20(b), 50
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging Maintainability of Complaint Under MRTU & PULP Act for Non-Compliance of Earlier Judgment. Failure to Implement Labour Court Order Constitutes Unfair Labour Practice Under Schedule IV Item 9 of Maharas...
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Upholds Tenant's Right to Restoration of Possession in Bombay Rent Act Case Due to Landlord's Failure to Occupy Premises Within One Month. Landlord's Non-Compliance with Section 17(1) of Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Contr...