The XXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge & Special Judge (NDPS) in Bengaluru, Smt. B.S. Jayashree, on March 22, 2024, allowed the bail application of Arun Kumar, Accused No. 5, in a highly unusual case involving the alleged conspiracy to falsely implicate another individual by planting opium in his vehicle. The bail order, issued in Crl.Misc.No.2258/2024 related to Cr.No.37/2024 of the R. R. Nagar Police Station, grants relief to the petitioner primarily on the grounds that the major portion of the investigation is complete and his continued detention is not warranted.

The petitioner, Arun Kumar, facing charges under Section 18(b) of the NDPS Act (for conscious possession of opium) and Sections 195, 201, 120B, and 212 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) (conspiracy to give false evidence, causing disappearance of evidence, criminal conspiracy, and harbouring an offender), was represented by Sri AN., Advocate.

The Allegations: Opium Planting and Conspiracy

The case originated on February 2, 2024, when the CCB (Central Crime Branch) police registered a case against one Chogharam (Accused No. 1) for allegedly possessing 428 grams of opium stored in his Honda Activa scooter. The contraband was seized, and Chogharam was arrested.

However, during police custody, Accused No. 1 claimed innocence, alleging that due to an existing enmity, certain individuals had planted the opium in his scooter. He pointed to a previous incident where his son was allegedly kidnapped, resulting in a case (Cr.No.250/2023) against his rivals, including Punaram (Accused No. 2). Accused No. 1 requested the Investigating Officer (IO) to check CCTV footage near his house.

The subsequent investigation, based on CCTV footage and Call Detail Records (CDR), dramatically shifted the focus of the case. The police found footage of two persons exiting a Maruthi Swift car near A1’s house in the early morning hours of February 2, 2024. Further checking revealed that a UPI payment for petrol and snacks made by the car occupants belonged to the petitioner, Arun Kumar (Accused No. 5).

The prosecution then alleged that Accused Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 conspired together to procure the opium and plant it in Chogharam’s scooter to falsely implicate him, driven by the ill-will arising from the previous kidnapping case. The petitioner, Arun Kumar, was identified as one of the two people who physically carried out the act of planting the opium, allegedly acting under instructions from Punaram (Accused No. 2) in exchange for Rs. 20,000/-.

Petitioner’s Defense and Ground of Parity

Arun Kumar’s counsel argued that his name did not appear in the initial FIR and he was implicated solely based on the statement of other accused. He contended that nothing was seized directly from his possession, thereby weakening the applicability of Section 18(b) of the NDPS Act against him.

Crucially, the defense highlighted that the original Accused No. 1, Chogharam (the person initially charged with possession), had already been enlarged on bail in Crl.Misc.1419/2024 by the same court, recognizing that he was falsely implicated. Though the petitioner was seeking bail for different reasons, the defense stressed his deep roots in society and his willingness to cooperate with the investigation.

Court’s Finding and Rationale for Granting Bail

The Court carefully scrutinized the investigation papers, acknowledging the bizarre sequence of events. The Judge noted that the IO’s investigation confirmed that Accused No. 1 was, in fact, falsely implanted in the case, which led to his subsequent release on bail.

The investigation against the conspirators, including the petitioner, relied heavily on:

1. The petitioner’s UPI payment record for the car used during the crime.
2. CCTV footage placing him near the scene.
3. CDR details showing conversations with co-accused.
4. The petitioner’s own voluntary statement confessing that he and Accused No. 6 planted the opium in the scooter as per A2’s instructions.

The Court observed that: “Major portion of investigation in the case is concluded. Further detention of petitioner is not warranted in the circumstances of the case.” The IO had already interrogated the petitioner, recorded his statement, collected CCTV footages, and secured CDR details. The material evidence of his involvement in the conspiracy and planting was already in the hands of the investigating agency.

While the anticipatory bail applications of co-accused Nos. 2, 3, 4, and 7 had been previously rejected by the Court, the Judge found that continued judicial custody for the petitioner, Arun Kumar, was no longer necessary to facilitate the investigation, as the main leads had been gathered and recorded. The Court concluded that by imposing stringent conditions, the apprehension of the prosecution regarding tampering with evidence or absconding could be safeguarded.

Conditions of Release

Allowing the petition, the Court ordered Arun Kumar to be released on bail upon executing a personal bond for Rs. 1,00,000/- with one surety for the like sum, subject to the following eight conditions:

1. The petitioner shall appear before the concerned IO once a month, preferably on the first Monday of every month between 10:00 am and 2:00 pm, until the filing of the charge sheet.
2. He shall not leave the jurisdiction of this court without prior permission.
3. He shall not tamper with the witnesses or abscond.
4. He shall cooperate with the IO for investigation.
5. He shall not commit a similar or any other offence while on bail.
6. He shall furnish his photo ID proof and local address proof document before the court, along with the photo ID proof of his surety.
7. He shall appear before the court on all hearing dates.
8. Breach of any of the conditions would entail the cancellation of bail.