Arbaz Pasha A @ Nawaz Pasha v. State of Karntaka by

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 12381 OF 2026 BETWEEN:

ARBAZ PASHA A @ NAWAZ PASHA S/O LATE ANSAR PASHA, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, R/AT GOSHAGALLI, WARD NO.22, AZAD CHOWK, CHINTAMANI TOWN, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT - 571 712. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. KARIAPPA N.A, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. MOHAMMED MUBARAK, ADVOCATE)

AND:

STATE OF KARNTAKA BY EXCISE POLICE STATION CHINTAMANI, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT - 571 712. (REPRESENTED BY LEARNED STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE - 560 001). …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.438 (FILED U/S.482 BNSS) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE HIM ON BAIL IN CRIME

Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

NO.3/2026-27/03183OSIE/1446541 REGISTERED BY THE EXCISE POLICE, CHINTAMNI, FOR THE OFFENCE P/US/ 21(b), 22, 25 AND 8(c) OF NDPS ACT 1985 WHICH IS PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC CHINTAMANI.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

ORAL ORDER

Accused No.1 in Crime No.3/2026-27/03183OSIE/1446541 registered by Inspector of Excise Police, Chintamani for the offences punishable under Sections 21(b), 22, 25 and 8(c) of the NDPS Act, 1985, is before this Court in this petition filed under Section 483 of BNSS 2023, seeking regular bail.

¶2Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶3Based on credible information received on

20.07.2026 at about 8.20 p.m., the petitioner was apprehended and from his possession, contraband article allegedly MDMA weighing 2.210 grams was recovered from the petitioner under a panchanama. Subsequently, FIR was registered against him for the aforesaid offences. He was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 20.07.2026. His bail application filed before the trial Court in Crl.Misc.No.400/2026 was rejected on

06.08.2026. Therefore, he is before this Court.

¶4Material on record would go to show that on

20.07.2026, based on credible information, the petitioner was apprehended by the Inspector of Excise, Chintamani and his staff, and from his possession contraband article allegedly MDMA weighing 2.210 grams and the mobile phone of the petitioner were seized from his person. Therefore, compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act becomes mandatory. The Deputy Superintendent of Excise, Chintamani is the Gazetted Officer who has

searched the person of the accused in the present case, in compliance with requirements of Section 50 of the NDPS Act. The very same officer is found to be part of the raiding squad and after obtaining his permission, the Investigating Officer had proceeded to apprehend the accused. Therefore, the said officer cannot be considered as an independent Gazetted Officer for the purpose of Section 50 of the NDPS Act. Law in this regard has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Parmanand and another reported in

(2014) SCC

¶345Even otherwise, the seized contraband article in the present case is of intermediate quantity. Therefore, the rigor under Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act cannot be made strictly applicable as against the petitioner herein, who has no other criminal antecedents.

¶5Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the prayer made by the petitioner for grant of regular bail needs to be answered affirmatively, subject to appropriate conditions. Accordingly, the following:

O R D E R

i) The Criminal Petition is allowed.

ii) The petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.3/2026-27/03183OSIE/1446541 registered by Inspector of Excise Police, Chintamani for the offences punishable under Sections 21(b), 22, 25 and 8(c) of the NDPS Act, 1985, subject to the following conditions:

a) The petitioner shall execute personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties for the likesum, to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court;

b) The petitioner shall appear regularly on all the dates of hearing before the Trial Court unless the Trial Court exempts his appearance for valid reasons;

c) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly threaten or tamper with the prosecution witnesses;

d) The petitioner shall not involve in similar offences in future;

e) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without permission of the said Court until the case registered against him is disposed off.

Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE SHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 77