SHIVAPPA @ SHIV ANANDAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed by accused No.1 under Section 439 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the ' Cr.P.C .', for brevity) seeking bail in Spl.NDPS No.1/2011 pending on the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Haveri (Crime No.59/2010 by Byadagi Police Station) registered for the offences punishable under Section 20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the ' NDPS Act ', for brevity).

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that the complainant namely S.L. Singhad, who was working as Dy.SP, Haveri, has filed a complaint before Byadagi Police on 08.06.2010 against the petitioner(accused No.1) and another person by name Hanumantappa Bijannanavar (accused No.2) and the same has been registered in Byadati PS Crime No.59/2010 for an offence punishable under Section 20(b) of the NDPS Act. It is the averment in the complaint that the complainant got credible information that somebody were transporting bags of ganja from Holal to Shivamogga via Devargudda and Byadgi in a Maruti van. Immediately, he approached the SP, Haveri, and as per the advice of SP, Haveri, he went to Byadgi and secured two panchas and 3 police constables and intimated about the details of credible information received by him. The complainant gave 5 currency notes of Rs.1,000/- to Police Constable 987 and their number were noted and made a mark on the said currency notes and the said police constable was directed to act as a customer for purchasing ganja with the people who are traveling in the van. After a short period of time, PC 987 intimated the complainant that they had stopped the van which was transporting ganja and immediately the complainant went to the spot with panchas and one person, who was in Maruti van, seeing the police jeep ran away from the spot and another person, who was driving the van, was caught by the police and he told his name and also told the name of one Sri. Shivappa as the owner of the said bags and that he had arranged the car for transporting the said ganja for Rs.6,000/- and also told them that when the police gave currency notes to Shivappa, Shivappa had given the said 5 currency notes to him as rent of the vehicle and presented those currency notes before the complainant and the said currency notes were tallied with the currencies notes given to PC 987 and they were the same currency notes. One bag was weighing 36 kgs and another bag was weight 10 kg. 100 g in each of the bags were taken as sample and both were packed separately and seizure mahazar was held. Thereafter, the complainant lodged a complaint before the Byadgi police and after investigation, the Investigating Officer filed charge sheet against the petitioner-accused No.1 and Hanumantappa Bijannanavar-accused No.2 for an offence under Section 20(b) of the NDPS Act. The petitioner is shown as accused No.1 and Hanumantappa Bijannanavar as accused No.2 in the charge sheet. The said case is numbered as Spl.(NDPS) No.5/2010 and it was pending before the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Haveri. On 26.02.2011, the learned District and Sessions Judge, Haveri, ordered for split up of the charge sheet against accused No.1 and the PSI, Byadgi, filed split up charge sheet against accused No.1 and it came to be numbered as Spl.(NDPS) No.1/2011. The case registered against accused No.2 in Spl.(NDPS) No.5/2010 has been disposed of convicting accused No.2 and imposing sentence and fine on 07.02.2015. As the petitioner/accused No.1 did not appear in Spl.(NDPS) No.1/2011, the Court recorded evidence of the witnesses under Section 299 of Cr.P.C. in the absence of accused No.1. The petitioner/accused No.1 came to be arrested and produced on 10.03.2020. The petitioner moved bail application before the trial Court and the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Haveri, rejected the bail application by order dated 15.04.2020. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court seeking bail.

(3.) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.