The facts of the case are that the suo moto complaint of one Prashanth R Varni, police officer, Bagalur police station, registered a case against the petitioner alleging that on 24.03.2021, himself along with the staff apprehended the accused and between 4.15 seized ganja of 20 kg 110 grams from the petitioner and he was taken to the custody and remanded to Judicial custody. The petitioner approached the Sessions Court for a grant of bail, which came to be rejected.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the very registration of the case itself is suspicious, there is a correction in the date of production of the accused before the court, and the FIR reached the court along with a complaint on 24.3.2021, the Investigating Officer violated all the mandatory provisions, not followed any of the provisions and not obtained the FSL report within fifteen days, not done qualitative and quantitative examination, the petitioner is in custody for nearly three months, he is ready to abide by any conditions imposed by this court.
Upon hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP and on perusal of the records, The court did not find any fault in receipt of the FIR or the complaint by the Session Judge and Spl. Judge on 24.3.2021 and that the remand application was signed by the Spl. Judge on 25.3.2021 and the accused was produced before the court on the next day within 24 hours as per Section 57 of the Cr.P.C. The FIR was received on 24.3.2021 and the remand application was received on 25.3.2021 within 24 hours. Therefore, the question of suspecting the FIR and the remand application at this stage is not sustainable without entering into trial and examination of the Investigating Officer.
The allegation against the petitioner is that he has brought more than 20 kg of ganja from Andhra Pradesh to sell ganja. He was apprehended by the police. The ganja is more than 20 kg which is a commercial quantity and the investigation is still in progress.
Whether the Investigating Officer violated the procedure or not is required to be considered at the time of trial and until the charge sheet is filed, it is not able to verify the documents as to whether there is any violation of mandatory provision or not. Therefore, I am of the view that if the petitioner is granted bail, there is every possibility of the petitioner tampering with the prosecution witnesses and absconding from the case cannot be ruled out as he is from Andhra Pradesh. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to bail.