In a significant legal development regarding the high-profile drug and mobile phone smuggling racket at Bengaluru’s central prison, a Special NDPS Court has granted anticipatory bail to 50-year-old Lakshmi alias Lakshmamma. The petitioner, identified as Accused No. 6, was allegedly involved in a complex network designed to smuggle contraband to inmates within the Parappana Agrahara Central Prison.
The order was delivered on April 2, 2024, by Smt. B.S. Jayashree, the XXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for NDPS cases in Bengaluru.
The Prison Smuggling Scandal Unfolds
The case, registered under Crime No. 191/2023 at the Parappana Agrahara Police Station, dates back to an incident on June 7, 2023. According to the prosecution, the security breach was discovered when Girish (Accused No. 1) and Rambhavan (Accused No. 2), both under-trial prisoners, returned to the jail after being produced in court for their respective hearings.
Upon conducting a mandatory search, prison officials found Girish in possession of 57 grams of brown sugar and eight mobile phones. Rambhavan was found carrying a keypad mobile phone and a USB cable. This discovery led the Jail Superintendent to file a formal complaint, triggering a wider investigation into how prohibited items were bypassing prison security.
Allegations Against Lakshmi and the Smuggling Network
The investigation revealed a sophisticated operation involving prisoners, outside associates, and even jail staff. Accused No. 1 allegedly confessed that he agreed to transport the items for a fee of Rs. 20,000, promised by another inmate, Muniraju (Accused No. 3).
The prosecution alleged that Lakshmi, who is the mother of Muniraju, played a role in the logistics. The voluntary statements of co-accused suggested that mobile phones and contraband were concealed near her house in Prakashnagar, Rajajinagar. It was further alleged that she assisted her son in supplying these articles to other associates, including escort police personnel who reportedly facilitated the handover in court toilets.
Lakshmi was subsequently arrayed as Accused No. 6, facing charges under Sections 22(b) and 21(b) of the NDPS Act, Section 42 of the Karnataka Prisons Act, and Section 424 of the IPC.
Defense Claims Innocence and Extraneous Implication
Advocate Sri CP, representing Lakshmi, argued that the petitioner is a law-abiding citizen with no prior criminal record. The defense emphasized that her name did not appear in the original FIR and that she was only implicated much later based solely on the voluntary statements of other accused persons.
The defense further contended that there was no direct material evidence connecting the 50-year-old woman to the procurement or distribution of the drugs. They argued that her involvement was an “extraneous implantation” and that she was a permanent resident of Bengaluru, willing to cooperate with the ongoing investigation.
Court’s Reasoning and Bail Conditions
After hearing both sides, the court noted that the quantity of brown sugar seized—57 grams—is classified as an “intermediary quantity,” which carries different legal weight than a commercial quantity under the NDPS Act.
Judge B.S. Jayashree observed that the primary recovery of the contraband had already been completed from the other accused persons. The court found that custodial interrogation of the petitioner was not strictly warranted, provided she adhered to strict conditions. The judge highlighted that Lakshmi had no “bad antecedents” and that her permanent residency in Bengaluru reduced the risk of her absconding.
In the final order, the court allowed the petition under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. and directed the police to release Lakshmi on bail in the event of her arrest, subject to the following conditions:
- Financial Security: Execution of a personal bond for Rs. 1,00,000 with one surety of the like sum.
- Non-Interference: She is strictly prohibited from inducing, threatening, or promising any person acquainted with the facts of the case to dissuade them from disclosing information to the court or police.
- Court Attendance: She must attend all court hearing dates without fail and cannot leave the court’s jurisdiction without prior permission until the trial concludes.
- Prevention of Recidivism: She must not commit any similar offences while out on bail.
- Verification: She must provide photo identity proof for both herself and her surety.
The court warned that any breach of these conditions would entitle the prosecution to seek the cancellation of her bail. As the investigation continues, this ruling marks a pivotal moment for one of the many individuals implicated in the Parappana Agrahara security breach.