Libertatem Magazine

Karnataka HC Allows Petition For Anticipatory Bail In The Offence Punishable u/s 20, 25, 8 (C) And 8 B Of NDPS Act, 1985

Contents of this Page

The criminal petition was filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. praying to grant the anticipatory bail to the Petitioner/ Shivamurttayya and direct the Excise Police Sub-Division, Vijayapura to release the petitioner in the offence punishable U/S- 20, 25, 8 (c) and 8 b of NDPS Act( Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act), 1985 was allowed.

Brief facts of the case

The complainant/ Excise Inspector, Vijayapur, received a piece of credible information about the unauthorized ganja plants (cannabis)  grown in the land at Sy.No.54/6 of Abbihal village, Nidagundi taluk, The Inspector, passed on the information to the Tahsildar of Nidagundi taluk and requesting him to lead the raiding team, proceeded to the spot along with the Tahsildar, panchas and other raiding team members. They noticed eleven ganja plants grown along with onion plants. By name Padadayya S/o Shivamurttayya attempted to run away but he was caught and enquired about the issue. He revealed that he was cultivating the land which actually belongs to the present petitioner Shivamurttayya. The said cultivator Padadayya also said to have stated that he was growing ganja plants without anybody’s knowledge, to sell it and make money, for which he had no license or permit.


“Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the prosecution has totally failed to collect any material to show the nexus between the alleged growth of ganja plants and the present petitioner. Even according to the complainant, the alleged cultivation of ganja plants by accused no.1 was without notice and knowledge of anyone including the present petitioner. He further submits that there is no material to show that the alleged seized plants or Crl.P.No.200061/2020 ganja plants fall within the NDPS Act. He also submits that quantum of the alleged goods whether falls under commercial quantity is also not established by the prosecution.

Learned High Court Government Pleader, while reiterating the contention taken up by him in his statement of objection, submitted that the offence is detrimental to the health of the society, as such; the petitioner does not deserve the relief as sought for”

Court’s observation

“A perusal of the material placed before the court, at this stage and more particularly the complaint would go to show that the person who is said to have cultivated the alleged ganja plants in his land was accused no.1 Sri Padadayya. The present petitioner, merely because he is the owner of the said land, is also shown as accused no.2 in the case. The nexus between the present petitioner with the alleged Crl.P.No.200061/2020 cultivation of the ganja plants may have to be looked into during the course of the investigation and subsequently during the trial, which follows thereafter if any. Even according to the prosecution, the apprehension of the present petitioner/accused no.2 is not required for any investigation purposes. The alleged quantity of the seized goods is said to be 6.5 kilograms, but it is to be noticed that the said weight is the total weight of eleven plants and not the separated parts of fruits, flowers or buds in it”

Decision of the Court

The Criminal Petition was allowed.

[googlepdf url=”” download=”Download Judgement PDF” ] is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgements from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe for our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

About the Author