IN THE COURT OF THE XXXIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE & SPL. JUDGE (NDPS), BENGALURU.
CCH.33.
PRESENT:
SMT. B.S. JAYASHREE, LL.M.,
XXXIII ACC & SJ & SPL.JUDGE (NDPS),
BENGALURU.
DATED: THIS THE 21st DAY OF JANUARY 2023
Crl. Misc.No.12291/2022
petitioner :
(accused)
Kurre Trindha Reddy, 51 years,
S/o.Sri Sambi Reddy, No.1­433, Near
Library, Undavalli, Tadepalli, Guntur,
Andhra Pradesh.
(By Sri BJ., Adv.)
V/S.

Respondent :
State by Union of India,
by Intelligence Officer, directorate of
Revenue Intelligence, No.8(2)P,
opposite BDA complex, HBR layout,
Kalyanagar post, Banasawadi,
Bangalore.
(By Spl. Public Prosecutor)
ORDER
The present petition U/Sec.439 of Cr.P.C., is filed by the
petitioner to enlarge him on bail, in F.No.DRI/BZU/S­IV/ENQ­
39/(INT­NIL)/2022 of DRI., BZU., registered for the offences
2
punishable U/Sec.8(c) R/w.Sec.21(c), 23(c), 28 of N.D.P.S. Act
on medical ground.
2. The prevalent grounds urged seeking bail:­
The petitioner is innocent of the commission of offences
made against him. He has been falsely implanted in the case.
He hails from the respectable family.

A false and fictitious
story has been cooked up by the respondent and the petitioner
was made a scapegoat in connection to the above case.
Though the alleged offence is non bailable, but is neither
punishable with imprisonment for life or death sentence. The
petitioner on the instruction of one Sahil Mahango he has
received the baggage and he was instructed to hand over them
to one person at Delhi.

He is not aware of contents of the
baggage. There is no document indicating that the petitioner
is involved in transporting the drug. The voluntary statement
is recorded subsequent to the seizure. In the said statement
he has stated that one Edward Prince Anderson instructed to
collect the baggage from Sahil Mahango at Lilongwe and he
was asked to carry baggage to Delhi from Lilongwe through
3
CCH­33
Crl.Misc.12291/2022
Malawi. The petitioner did not enquire in regard to the nature
of drugs and its procurement.

At no point of time the
petitioner is in possession of the alleged contraband.

He is
educated, holding Masters Degree in Arts from Nagarajuna
University, Guntur.

He has worked as Teacher in private
schools till 2016. He has to take care of his family. If he is
detained in the Central prison his career will be spoiled in the
midst of the other criminals in the prison. The petitioner is
suffering from ill health. The report is received from the Jail
Authorities, the petitioner is subjected to medical examination.
He has to under go Bariatric surgery at Victoria Hospital.
The petitioner is the permanent resident of the address shown
in the cause title. The petitioner is ready and willing to abide
by any conditions imposed by this court in the event of grant
of bail. He is ready to offer surety for their due appearance
before this court. Hence, sought to grant bail.
3. The prosecution while opposing the bail petition
contended that the I.O has seized 14.52 Kgs., of heroin from
the conscious possession of the accused persons which is a
commercial quantity. There are sufficient material available
4
against the petitioner, and the said offences are punishable
with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less
than 10 years which may extend to 20 years and shall also be
liable to fine. The investigation is pending. In the event of his
release he may tamper with the prosecution witnesses.

In the
event of grant of bail he may abscond and may tamper the
investigation. The petitioner is not entitled for bail. With these
specific pleas sought to reject the bail plea of the petitioner.
4. Heard the arguments of both sides.

The learned
counsel for petitioner and respondent have submitted written
arguments along with case laws.
5. The points that arise for my consideration are as here
under:
1. Whether petitioner have made out
sufficient grounds to enlarge him on
bail?
2. What order?
6. My findings on the above points are as under:
Point No.1: In the Affirmative
Point No.2: As per the final order for the following:
5
CCH­33
Crl.Misc.12291/2022
REASONS
7. POINT NO.1:­ The IO, DRI., Bangalore., is the
complainant in the case.

He has apprehended the accused
with commercial quantity of contraband.

According to the
report of complainant IO., he has received credible intelligence
to the effect that one person namely Kurre Trindha Reddy
bearing Passport No.L8762450 is scheduled to arrive in
Bengaluru from Lilongwe (Malawe) via Addis Ababa (Ethiopia)
in Ethiopian Airlines flight No.ET 690 on 19.8.2022 who would
be attempting to smuggle narcotic substance into India. The
officers of DRI BZU have arrived at KIA, Bengaluru around
7.00 hours on 19.8.2022. At around 7.40 hours on 19.8.22
the said Airways flight landed at Bangalore airport after
mandatory checkups and clearance of immigration at around
8.15 hours the said officers started checking passport of
incoming passengers in the said flight and after checking of
few passengers the accused was intercepted by the officers of
6
DRI BZU.

After confirming his identity enquired about his
purpose to visit dated 9.8.2022 to Lilongwe, Malawi to which
he has stated that he went there for some business purpose
related to chemicals. He was in possession of boarding pass
having sequence number 010 having seat No.16L with 02
check in baggage stickers. He was also carrying one green
colour hand baggage trolley having marking as VIP travel gear.
In the presence of mahazar witnesses they have checked the
luggage of present petitioner.

During initial checking no
incriminatory article is revealed. But on persistent enquiry he
has stated that some chemical items are concealed false
bottom of check in baggage. They have again placed the empty
it was reflected some concealment from the bottom of check in
bags.

Accused was told to remove the concealment.

In the
said concealment there was contraband packed in light
brownish paper weighing 14.52 Kgs. When it was tested with
DD kit it gave positive answer for heroin. It was a white colour
powder. The bulk contraband after taking out the sample was
seized under the detail mahazar. Summons was issued to the
accused. His statement came to be recorded. Thereafter, he
CCH­33
Crl.Misc.12291/2022
7
was put under arrest, produced before the court and
remanded to judicial custody.
prosecuted
for
the
offences
The accused herein is
punishable
U/Sec.8(c)
R/w.Sec.21(c), 23(c), 28 of N.D.P.S. Act.
8. It is vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that he is innocent of commission of offence. He is a
teacher by profession.

The son of the petitioner is a PhD.,
student doing part time job. As per the information of one of
lecturers the son of the petitioner who was offered part time
job, an Advocate of Malawe by name Edward deliberately
misguided the petitioner and his son stating that their
business is legal in all respects.

The petitioner and his son
have decided to travel to Malawe to do the said job.
Petitioner’s son received flight tickets through whatsapp from
Edward.

They were instructed to deliver the baggage
containing chemical powder which is used to clean stain on
currency notes.

They were given wrong information.

They
were made to travel from Vijayawada to Delhi and from Delhi
to Malawe.

At Malawe airport,
petitioner and his son were
made to meet their company manager Sahil Mahingo.

Sahil
8
Mahingo send only the petitioner from Malawe to Bangalore on
18th august. He was arrested. Later petitioner’s son was sent
to Delhi on 20th August. They are innocent of commission of
offences. They are technically trapped. The web site address
copy, Edward’s
contact details, screen shot from website,
whatsapp chart history and mail are available indicating the
innocence of the petitioner. The petitioner is sick. The medial
documents speaks about his illness. Hence, sought to enlarge
him on bail.
9.

Learned counsel for petitioner in support of his
ground for bail has referred to the Judgment of Hon’ble Apex
Court reported in 2012 Crl. L.J.702 Sanjay Chandra Vs.C.B.I..
In the said case Hon’ble Apex Court discussed about the object
of bail. On looking into the facts and circumstances of the case
in the said case the Hon’ble Apex Court expressed that,
“object of bail is neither punitive nor preventive
deprivation
liberty
must
be
considered
a
punishment unless it can be required to ensure
9
CCH­33
Crl.Misc.12291/2022
that an accused person will stand is trial when
called upon
The object of bail is neither punitive nor
preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be
considered a punishment, unless it can be
required to ensure that an accused person will
stand his trial when called upon. The Courts
owe more than verbal respect to the principle
that punishment begins after conviction, and
that every man is deemed to be innocent until
duly tried and duly found guilty.

From the
earliest times, it was appreciated that detention
in custody pending completion of trial could be a
cause of great hardship. From time to time,
necessary demands that some unconvicted
persons should be held in custody pending trial
to secure their attendance at the trial but in
such case, ‘necessity’ is the operative test. In
this country, it would be quite contrary to the
10
concept of personal liberty enshrined in the
Constitution
that
any
person
should
be
punished in respect of any matter, upon which,
he has not been convicted or that in any
circumstances, he should be deprived of his
liberty upon only the belief that he will tamper
with the witnesses if left at liberty, save in the
most extraordinary circumstances. Apart from
the question of prevention being the object of a
refusal of a bail, one must not lose sight of the
fact that any imprisonment before conviction
has a substantial punitive content and it would
be improper for any Court to refuse bail as a
mark of disapproval of former conduct whether
the accused has been convicted by any court to
refuse bail as a mark of disapproval of former
conduct whether accused has been convicted for
it or not or to refuse bail to an unconvicted for it
or not or to refuse bail to an unconvicted person
11
CCH­33
Crl.Misc.12291/2022
for the purpose of giving him a taste of
imprisonment as a lesson”.
I have carefully gone through the dictum the principles
enunciated in the dictum has to be followed by this Court.
However, the said principles have to be applied on looking to
the facts and circumstances of each case. Herein in the instant
case the petitioner is apprehended with commercial quantity of
contraband. The Hon’ble Apex Court in catera of decision was
pleased to hold that rigours U/s37 of NDPS Act is applicable
when commercial quantity of contraband is seized.

Here in
this case, this Court has already rejected Bail plea of petitioner
on earlier occasion. Now he is seeking the bail on the health
ground.

Therefore, much discussion on the merits of bail
application on other ground urged is not warranted at this
stage.
He has referred to the order of Hon’ble High Court
reported in 2003 Crl.L.J. 99 Syed Abdul
In the said case
Hon’ble High Court has granted interim bail to the accused for
a period of 3 months on medical ground in another case in Crl.

12
Petiton No.281/2010 dated 03.02.2010 B.V.Radhakrishna V.s
Inspector of Excise. The Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka
granted interim bail on medical grounds.
I have carefully gone through the rival contentions. As per the
report of prosecution the accused here in is carrying heroin to
the tune of 14.52 Kgs., Malawe to Bengaluru. It was concealed
in the baggage. On repeated enquiry, petitioner has revealed
about the transport of the contraband.

In his statement he
has stated that he has been to Malawe, one Shail Mahango
promised him the job. Shail Mahango met him, handed over
the trolley bags and as per the instructions he has carried the
baggages. He has offered 3000 US dollars for carrying it.
When
he
was
proceeded
Bangalore Airport.

to
Bengaluru,
intercepted
at
There during search, 14.52 Kgs., heroin
was seized. At this stage, this court has to appreciate
primafacie materials about the possession of huge quantum of
contraband in the luggage baggage of petitioner.

The
contention put forth by the petitioner herein is he is innocent
and he was doing the part time job at the instance of one Sahil
Mahingo.

He has been tendered 3000 dollars by the said
13
CCH­33
Crl.Misc.12291/2022
person. He contends that it is a chemical to clean the stains.
On apprehension and seizure and on testing it with DD Kit the
seized article is found to be commercial quantity of heroin. If
at all the petitioner is carrying a chemical which is permitted
and declared as a harmless article then he would have shown
the documents for carrying the same from Malawe to India.
What made him to conceal the packet deep inside the carry
bag. If the chemical name is known to him and if that is an
authorized article to transport what made him to hide the
thing and to make false statement before DRI officers initially.
Why he has not questioned the person who has handed over
the baggage about the details of the articles which is to be
carried.

All these circumstances in the case infers that
petitioner herein is having knowledge of the article which is
going to be carried by hiding in a luggage bag. The very act of
carrying the article concealed inside the luggage bag without
informing the officers who are conducting checking, clearly
denotes the animus of the petitioner.
On looking to the materials available on record, the
prosecution has placed primafacie materials in regard to
14
possession of commercial quantity of contraband.
the petitioner herein has to undergo surgery.

However,
On looking to
the ill health of the petitioner and the seriousness of the
ailment. Without going to the merits of other grounds urged in
the Bail application, if the petitioner is enlarged on Bail, it
would not in any way prejudice the trial of the case. However,
after undergoing the period of treatment and recovery he shall
surrender before the Court.
10. Accordingly, I answer point No.1 in the affirmative.

following:
11. Point No.2:­
In the result, I proceed to pass
ORDER
The Petition filed by the petitioner U/Sec.439 of
Cr.P.C is hereby allowed.
The petitioner is enlarged on bail on executing
personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/­ with two
sureties for the like sum with following conditions.

15
1.

CCH­33
Crl.Misc.12291/2022
He shall surrender before the Court before
completion of three months.

2.

He shall not tamper the witness or abscond.

3.

He shall co­operate with the I.O. for
investigation.

4.

He shall not commit similar offence or
any offence while on bail.

5.

He shall furnish his photo ID proof and
local address proof document before the
court and photo ID proof of his sureties.

6.

He shall appear before the court on all
hearing dates.

7.

Breach of any of the conditions by the
petitioner would entail cancellation of bail.

[Dictated to the stenographer, directly on the computer, typed and
computerised by her, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in
Open Court on this the 21st day of January 2023]
(B. S. JAYASHREE)
XXXIII ACC & SJ & SPL.JUDGE,
(NDPS) : BENGALURU.