ABDUL RAZAK B U V. UNION OF INDIA

CRL.P/4578/2022

AI Insights

The case involves Abdul Razak B.U., accused of being involved in a drug trafficking operation where 139.735 kg of ganja was seized. The petitioner was arrested based on the voluntary statement of co-accused and was initially denied bail. The prosecution argued that the petitioner was a kingpin in the drug trade, using his beauty parlor for packaging and distributing drugs. The defense contended that the petitioner was falsely implicated, highlighting his legitimate business operations and tax declarations. After considering the arguments and evidence, the court decided to grant bail, emphasizing the need for a trial to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 722188 (HC-BANGALORE)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 22-06-2022
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: MADHUKAR
• Assessee Lawyers: HASHMATH
• Keywords: Bail; Ganja; Income tax assessee; Judicial Custody; NDPS Act; Voluntary statement
• Section: 25; 29; 27(a); 439; 8(c); 20B(ii)(c)

Judgement Text

"BETWEEN: ABDUL RAZAK B.U. S/O. UMAR B.M., AED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/AT NO.117, MARUTHI LAYOUT, CHINNAPANAHALLI, OPP.GJR INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL, MARATHAHALLI, BANGALORE-560037 N/A GUNDU RAO BADAVANE, SHANIVARASANTHE TALUK, SOMAWAR PETE, KODAGU DISTRICT-571 235 ..…PETITIONER (BY SRI HASHMATH BASHA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI KARIAPPA N.A. H.P. UNIQUE & CO.) AND: UNION OF INDIA NARCOTIC CONTROL BUREAU, BANGALORE ZONAL UNIT, BANGALORE. ….. RESPONDENT (BY SRI MADHUKAR DESHPANDE, SPL. P.P.) 2 THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C. BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIIONERN ON BAIL IN NCB FILE NO.48/1/19/2021/BZU ON THE FILE OF THE RESPONDENT NCB, BANGALORE WHICH IS PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE XXXIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, SPL. JUDGE FOR NDPS CASES, BANGALORE IN SPL. C.C.NO.834/2022 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 8(C), 20B(II)(C), 25, 27-A OF N.D.P.S. ACT. THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 22.06.2022 COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING AT DHARWAD BENCH, THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: O R D E R This criminal petition is filed by the accused No.6 under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’, for short) for granting bail in respect of NCB File No.48/1/19/2021/BZU on the file of respondent NCB, Bangalore, which before XXXIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for NDPS Cases, Bangalore City for the offence punishable under Sections 8(c), 20B(ii)(c), 25, 27-A and 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘NDPS Act’, for short). 2. Heard the arguments of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for counsel for petitioner and learned Special Public Prosecutor for respondent. 3 3. The case of the prosecution is that on 30.09.2021, the complainant received credible information that two persons are transporting ganja in Maruti Swift car. Based upon the information, the complainant intercepted the car bearing No.KA-12/MA-6697, where two persons were sitting in the car and after enquiry, they searched and found 136.8 kg ganja. On the voluntary statement of accused No.2, the police also seized 1.920 kg ganja from his house. Totally, the police seized 139.735 kg ganja from the accused persons. During the investigation, it is revealed that this petitioner/accused No.6 also involved in the crime. Therefore, the respondent summoned this petitioner and arrested him on 02.10.2021 and remanded to judicial custody. The first bail petition came to be rejected by this Court in Crl.P.No.8998/2021 on 12.01.2022. After filing of charge sheet, again this petitioner is before this Court. 4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the counsel for petitioner has strenuously contended that the petitioner is innocent of the alleged offences and he has been falsely implicated in the case. Though he has been arrested 01.10.2021, the respondent 4 has shown the date of arrest as 02.10.2021. There is no recovery of any ganja at the instance of this petitioner. The petitioner is running men’s beauty parlor and earning income. He is an income tax Assessee and has declared his income to the income tax authorities. The investigation is completed and charge sheet is filed. The co-accused were already granted bail by this Court. The petitioner is ready to abide by any conditions imposed by this Court. Based upon the voluntary statement of the co-accused, the petitioner has been arrayed as accused. He is in custody for eight months. The petitioner is not required for any interrogation. Hence, the learned Senior Counsel prayed for grant of bail. 5. Per contra, learned Special Public Prosecutor seriously objected the bail petition and contended that this petitioner is the main accused who is a kingpin. He used to purchase ganja from other States and in his beauty parlor, used to pack the ganja and thereafter he used to sell the same to customers by sending through the vehicle like Swiggy and Zomato. This Court has considered all the grounds urged in the earlier petition and rejected the petition. There is no changed circumstances. The accounts 5 seized by the respondent reveals that huge crores of rupees were received by the petitioner and it is not possible to accept that those money were pertaining to the beauty parlor. The offence under Sections 27A, 28 and 29 of NDPS Act attract against this petitioner. Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the petition. 6. In reply arguments, learned Senior Counsel further contended that if any offence committed earlier by the petitioner that cannot be considered as punishment and Section 27A of the NDPS Act does not attract against this petitioner as there is no material to show that he has paid amount to the seller for purchasing ganja. He has declared his income to the income tax authorities. There is no basis for arrest of the petitioner if at all any amount received or paid by him, it has to be questioned by the Income Tax Department, the respondent cannot take any action. Therefore, he prayed for granting bail. 7. Having heard the arguments of the learned Senior Counsel for counsel for petitioner and learned Special Public Prosecutor respondent, perused the records. 6 8. The petitioner is running men’s beauty parlor. There is no recovery of any drugs at the instance of this petitioner. Except voluntary statement, there is nothing on record to show that this petitioner is directly involved in the crime. Learned Senior Counsel contended that if at all any amount of transaction made by the petitioner in his business, it was declared to the income tax authorities whereas Special Public Prosecutor has strenuously contended that the petitioner transacted crores of rupees through online transaction, through ATM card and credit card apart from the cash account. The statement of accounts also produced by both the counsel. Of course, the statement of accounts of the petitioner reveals that he has transacted crores of rupees through online and the counsel also produced the income tax returns filed by the petitioners wherein the petitioner declared his income to the income tax authorities and the profit and loss accounts also reveals that he has shown gross income of Rs.2,48,452/-. However, the profit and loss account reveals that he has shown Rs.25,45,100/- towards purchase as well as his received income was Rs.45,00,000/- and net profit was Rs.2,48,452/- which was declared by him. Even for the assessment year 2017-2018, he declared his income. That 7 apart, he is having 2-3 branches of men’s beauty parlor in various reputed places. Even his turnover was gone up to Rs.75,00,000/- at KSL Water supply. It all reveal whatever transaction made by the petitioner in lakhs of rupees and crores of rupees were all declared by him to the income tax authorities. Therefore, at this stage, without going for trial, the contention of the respondent cannot be acceptable that the petitioner transacted crores of rupees more than Rs.2,50,000/- and at this stage, it cannot be able to presume that this amount was received by him by selling drugs without going for trial. 9. It is an admitted fact that there is no recovery from this petitioner except voluntary statement of the co-accused. If at all Swiggy and Zomato vehicles were used in the previous transaction, there is no case registered against the petitioner. But here accused Nos.1 and 2 were arrested and ganja of 139.735 kg was recovered from them. Though both the counsel relied on various judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and High Courts in various cases, for considering the bail petition, this Court cannot hold a mini trial. The petitioner is in custody for more than eight months. The 8 investigation is completed and charge is filed. Considering all these aspects, I am of the view that by imposing certain stringent conditions if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, it will not prejudice the case of the prosecution. Accordingly, I pass the following order: The criminal petition is allowed. The trial Court is directed to release the petitioner/accused No.6 on bail in NCB File No.48/1/19/2021/BZU on the file of respondent NCB, Bangalore, which before XXXIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for NDPS Cases, Bangalore City, subject to the following conditions: i. The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of `5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. ii. The petitioner shall not tamper the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly. iii. The petitioner shall not indulge in similar offences. 9 iv. The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without prior permission of the Trial Court. v. The petitioner shall mark his attendance once in a month on every 16th day of Calendar month for a period of 6 months or till commencement of trial, whichever is earlier. If any of the conditions is violated, then the prosecution is at liberty to move an application for cancellation of bail. Sd/- JUDGE Naa "