SAMEER KHAN @ DADU vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Case Type: N/A

Date of Judgment: 02-02-2026

Preview image for SAMEER KHAN @ DADU vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Full Judgment Text

- 1 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5922
WP No. 2870 of 2026

HC-KAR




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

ND
DATED THIS THE 2 DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

WRIT PETITION NO. 2870 OF 2026 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

SAMEER KHAN @ DADU
S/O LATE MURTUJA KHAN
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO. 2627
TH
5 CROSS, M.K.D.K. ROAD
MANDI MOHALLA, MYSURU - 570 001.
(NOW IN JUDICIAL CUSTODY)
…PETITIONER








(BY SRI R.K.MAHADEVA, ADVOCATE)


AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY
STATION HOUSE OFFICER
MANDI POLICE STATION
NARASIMHARAJA SUB-DIVISION
MYSURU CITY, MYSURU
PIN CODE - 570 001.

2. POLICE OFFICER
MANDI POLICE STATION
NARASIMHARAJA SUB-DIVISION
MYSURU CITY, MYSURU
PIN CODE - 570 001.
…RESPONDENTS


Digitally signed
by SANJEEVINI
J KARISHETTY
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka



- 2 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5922
WP No. 2870 of 2026

HC-KAR


(BY SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL. SPP FOR R1)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 528 OF
THE BNSS PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED REMAND
ORDER DATED 13.01.2026 IN CRIME NO. 9/2026 OF MANDI
POLICE STATION, MYSURU CITY, MYSURU FOR THE ALLEGED
OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 20(b)(ii)(A) OF
NARCOTIC DRUGS AND PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES ACT,
1985 PASSED BY THE HONBLE III ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE
AND JMFC AT MYSURU VIDE ANNEXURE-A AGAINST THE
PETITIONER/ ACCUSED NO. 1 ONLY.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner/accused No.1 is before this Court calling in
question a remand order dated 13-01-2026 passed by the III
Additional Civil Judge and JMFC at Mysuru in Crime No.9/2026
registered for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(A)
of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short).

2. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows: -
It is alleged that while the respondent No.2 was on
patrolling duty, the petitioner who was working at a petty shop,


- 3 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5922
WP No. 2870 of 2026

HC-KAR


on seeing the respondent No.2 started behaving suspiciously
and tried to run away. Upon being apprehended, 53 grams of
ganja comes to be seized from the possession of the petitioner.
A report is prepared in the presence of the panchas and is
submitted to the Respondent No.1. On the basis of this report,
a crime comes to be registered against the petitioner who is
arraigned as accused No.1 for the offence punishable under
Section 20(b)(ii)(A) of the Act. The petitioner is then produced
before the concerned Court. The concerned Court by its order
dated 13-01-2026 remands the petitioner to judicial custody. It
is this order which is challenged by the petitioner in the subject
petition.

3. Heard Sri R.K. Mahadeva, learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner and Sri. B.N. Jagadeesha learned Additional

State Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No.1.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
only 53 grams of ganja was seized from the possession
petitioner which is a small quantity under the Act.
Section 20(b)(ii)(A) of the Act which deals with offences
involving small quantities of cannabis is punishable with


- 4 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5922
WP No. 2870 of 2026

HC-KAR


imprisonment of one year or with a fine and is bailable in
nature. Section 37 of the Act states that only offences involving
commercial quantities of contraband are non-bailable.
Therefore, he submits that the petitioner should not have been
remanded to judicial custody and instead should be released on
bail.

5. Per contra , the learned Additional State Public
Prosecutor, appearing for the respondents, would contend that
the petitioner was previously convicted for a similar offence
under the Act, where he pleaded guilty and it was settled
before the Lok Adalat. The petitioner cannot be released on bail
because Section 37 of the Act, states that offences under the
Act are cognizable and non-bailable. He further submits that if
the petitioner is to be released on bail, stringent conditions

must be imposed on him.

6. I have given my anxious consideration to the
submissions made by the respective learned counsel for the
parties and have perused the material on record.



- 5 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5922
WP No. 2870 of 2026

HC-KAR


7. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The only
issue that merits consideration before this Court is whether the
petitioner can be released on bail for the offence of possessing
a small quantity of ganja as provided under Section 20(b)(ii)(A)
of the Act, despite the rigours provided under Section 37 of the
Act. This issue need not detain this court for too long nor delve
deep into the matter.

8. The High Court of Kerala in the case of MATHEW v.
1
STATE OF KERALA , holds as follows:

"…… …… ……
5. A look as the law first. Section 20(b)(ii)(A) reads as
follows:
20. Punishment for contravention in relation to
cannabis plant and cannabis - Whoever, in contravention
of any provision of this Act or any rule or order made or
condition of licence granted thereunder:—
(a) cultivates any cannabis plant; or
(b) produces, manufactures, possesses, sells,
purchases, transports, imports inter- State,
exports inter- State or used cannabis, shall be
punishable,-
(i) where such contravention relates to clause (a)
with rigorous imprisonment for a term which
may extend to ten years, and shall also be
liable to fine which may extend to one lakh
rupees; and
(ii) where such contravention relates to sub-
clause (b),-

1
2008 SCC OnLine Ker 53


- 6 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5922
WP No. 2870 of 2026

HC-KAR


(A) and involves small quantity, with rigorous
imprisonment for a term which may extend
to six months, or with fine which may
extend to ten thousand rupees, or with
both:
(emphasis supplied)
6. It is very evident from a reading of the said
section that the offence is punishable with
imprisonment for a term which may extend to six
months of fine or both. If there is no special
declaration to make the offence non- bailable, one
has got to go to the schedule to the Cr.P.C. to
ascertain whether the offence is bailable or non-
bailable. This conclusion follows easily from section
2(a), which defines a “bailable offence” as also
Section 4 and 5 of the Cr.P.C. which stipulate that
any offence under a special law must be
investigated, enquired into, tried or otherwise dealt
with in accordance with the Cr.P.C. if the special law
does not make any special provision. There can also
be no doubt that under the schedule to the Cr.P.C.
(the last entry in Part II) that any offence
punishable with imprisonment for less than three
years or with fine only shall be non cognizable and
bailable.
7. There can hence be no doubt that in the
absence of a special provision in Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, the offence under
Section 20(b)(ii)(A) must be held to be a bailable
one.
8. The contention is that there is adequate
provision in Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act. It declares all
offences under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act to be non bailable, contends the
learned Public Prosecutor. I shall first look at Section
37. It reads as follows:
“37. Offence to be cognizable and non-bailable- (1)<br>Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of<br>Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)-<br>a) every offence punishable under this Act shall be<br>cognizable:“37. Offence to be cognizable and non-bailable- (1)
Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)-
a) every offence punishable under this Act shall be
cognizable:



- 7 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5922
WP No. 2870 of 2026

HC-KAR


b) no person accused of an offence punishable for<br>[offences under Section 19 or section 24 or section<br>27-A and also for offences involving commercial<br>quantity] shall be released on bail or on his own<br>bond unless-<br>(i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an<br>opportunity to oppose the application for such<br>release, and<br>(ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the<br>application, the Court is satisfied that there are<br>reasonable grounds for believing that he is not<br>guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to<br>commit any offence while on bail.”<br>(2) The limitations on granting of bail specified in clause<br>(b) of sub-section (1) are in addition to the<br>limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure,<br>1973 (2 of 1974) or any other law for the time being<br>in force, on granting of bail.b) no person accused of an offence punishable for
[offences under Section 19 or section 24 or section
27-A and also for offences involving commercial
quantity] shall be released on bail or on his own
bond unless-
(i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an
opportunity to oppose the application for such
release, and
(ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the
application, the Court is satisfied that there are
reasonable grounds for believing that he is not
guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to
commit any offence while on bail.”
(2) The limitations on granting of bail specified in clause
(b) of sub-section (1) are in addition to the
limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 (2 of 1974) or any other law for the time being
in force, on granting of bail.
(emphasis supplied)
9. A reading of Section 37 sans the head note
must clearly show that there is no specific
stipulation in the body of Section 37 which makes
the offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(A) a non
bailable one. The stipulation in the schedule to the
Cr.P.C. is not seen modified by any specific
provision in Section 37. The body of Section 37 is
silent as to whether an offence under the Narcotic
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act is bailable
or non bailable. Section 37(1)(b) speaks of a special
provision in relation to certain offences under the
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.
Offences under Section 19 or 24 or 27 A and also
offences involving commercial quantity are
governed by the special provisions stipulated in
Section 37(1)(b) with regard to the grant of bail.
Section 37(2) reiterates that the limitation in clause
(b) are in addition to the limitations under the
Cr.P.C.
10. Thus there can be trace of doubt that going
by the language employed in the body of Section
37, the offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(A) is a
bailable offence.



- 8 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5922
WP No. 2870 of 2026

HC-KAR


11. The learned Public Prosecutor contends that the
head note of Section 37 clearly shows that all offences
under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances
Act are cognizable and bailable. It is true that the head
not reads thus
“Offences to be Cognizable and non-bailable”.
12. In the body of Section 37, there is nothing
that declare that all offences under the Narcotic
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act shall be non
bailable but the head note suggests such a
possibility. There is clear, apparent and evidence
incongruity between the head note and the body of
Section 37. The question is what would prevail.
13. The learned Public Prosecutor further points
out that the statements of objects and reasons in
the amendment Act 2 of 1989 by which Section 37
was amended, does also make it clear that the
legislative exercise of amendment was inter alia “to
provide that the offences shall be cognizable and
non bailable”. Clause 2(vii) stipulates that the
purpose of amendment was to provide that the
offences shall be cognizable and non bailable. The
earlier Section 37 was amended in 1989 to include
this head note.
14. Thus it is seen that the objects and reasons
as also the head note indicate and suggest that all
offences under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act are non bailable whereas the clear
and unambiguous stipulations in the body of
Section 37 do not lead to such a conclusion.
15. It is not necessary to search for the principles of
law applicable. It is axiomatic in the interpretation of
statutes that when the enacted provision of the statue in
the body of the statutory provision leads to a particular
conclusion, the head note or the objects and reasons
cannot nullify or modify the effect of the enacted
provisions in the body of the statute. Where there is
confusion or ambiguity arising from the words used in the
statutory provision, certainly external aids like head not
and objects and reasons can be made use of. When the



- 9 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5922
WP No. 2870 of 2026

HC-KAR


statutory provision is clear, cogent and unambiguous, it is
impermissible to resort to external aids like the head
note, marginal note or the objects and reasons to Come
to a conclusion contrary to the conclusion which is plain
reading of the statutory provisions yields. Maxwell on the
interpretation of Statute accepts this principle. It will be
apposite in this context to extract from page 11 of the
12th edition of Maxwell wherein it is stated as follows:
“The (headings) cannot control the plain words of the
statute, [(1923) 1 Ch. 143], but they may explain
ambiguous words, (1984) 9 App. Cas. 365. But “while the
court is entitled to look at the headings in an Act of
Parliament to resolve any doubt they may have as to
ambiguous words, the law is quite clear that you cannot
use such headings to give a different effect to clear words
in the section, where there cannot be any doubt as to their
ordinary meaning, R. v. Surrey (North-Eastern Area)
Assessment Committee(1948) 1 K.B. 28, per Lord Goddard
C.J. at pp. 32, 33.”
16. The Supreme Court had occasion to consider this
question in the decision in Frick India Ltd. v. Union of
India ((1990) 1 SCC 400 : AIR 1990 S.C. 689) in para. 8
of the said decision, it is unambiguously held that the
head note cannot modify the plain meaning in the
statutory provisions. The following words appear in para.
8:
“It is well settled that the headings prefixed to sections or
entries cannot control the plain words of the provision; they
cannot also be referred to for the purpose of construing the
provision when the words used in the provision are clear
and unambiguous; nor can they be used for cutting down
the plain meaning of the words in the provision. Only, in the
case of ambiguity or doubt the heading or sub-heading may
be referred to as an aid in construing the provision but even
in such a case it could not be used for cutting down the
wide application of the clear words used in the provision.”.
17. The same principle has been followed by this Court
in Gokul Chit Funds v. Kochu Ouseph Vareed (1976 K.L.T.
747(D.B.) and Kerala State Housing Board v. Yusuff.
(1984 K.L.T. 55)(D.B.).
18. In fact, I do note that there can be no
confusion on this aspect as to whether the offence
under Section 20(b)(ii)(A) is bailable or not



- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5922
WP No. 2870 of 2026

HC-KAR


because a Division Bench of this Court
in Shaji v. Kerala State (2004 (3) K.L.T. 270) while
answering a reference of the very specific issue, in
para. 22, the Division Bench had answered the
question thus.
“Going by section 36 of the Act, all offences under the Act,
punishable with imprisonment for a period of more than
there years shall be triable only by the Special Court An
offence under the Act, involving small quantity, is
punishable as per Section 20(c) with rigorous imprisonment
for a term which may extend upto six months only. The last
entry in Part II of the Schedule to the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973, provides that offences under laws other
than Penal Code, 1860, punishable with imprisonment for
less than three years or with the shall be “No-cognizable
and ‘Bailable’ to be tried by ‘Any Magistrate’. The offence
under the Act is made triable by a Special Court, in terms of
Section 36 A(1)(a) of the Act, if it is “punishable with
imprisonment for a term of more than three years”. Of
course, all offences under the Act are cognizable going by
Section 37(1)(a) of the Act. Except to that extent, for trial
of the offences, the provisions in the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973, shall be applied going by Section 4(2) of
that Code. So the offences under the Act, which are
punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding
three years, are bailable offences.”
(emphasis supplied)
19. I am bound by the decision of the Division
Bench. The learned Public Prosecutor contends that
the said decision did not take into consideration the
head note of Section 37 as also the stipulation in
the objects and reasons of the 1989 amendment.
Even if those aids for construction were also looked
into, the conclusion cannot be different.


8.1. Again, the High Court of Kerala in the case of ROBUL
2
SAIKH v. STATE OF KERALA , holds as follows:

2
2016 SCC OnLine Ker 7105


- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5922
WP No. 2870 of 2026

HC-KAR



“…. …. ….
3. The crux of the matter is whether the offence
under Section 20(b)(ii)(A) is a bailable offence or
not? Going by the caption of Section 37 of the
N.D.P.S. Act, at the first blush, it may appear that all
the offences under the N.D.P.S. Act are non bailable
and cognizable. At the same time, Section 37(1)(a)
says that every offence punishable under that Act
shall be cognizable . There, the legislature has not
incorporated the term ‘non bailable’ also. The
caption of the Section should precisely be one
representing the contents of the Section. When the
detailed provision contained under Section 37 of the
Act do not show that every offence under the Act
are non bailable, especially when it has been
clarified in the Section that every offence
punishable under that Act is cognizable, it has to be
noted that the legislature has never thought of
making every offence under the Act as non bailable.
Therefore, it should go by the general law as per the
Code of Criminal Procedure, to decide as to whether
an offence under the N.D.P.S. Act is bailable or not.
When the offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(A) of the
N.D.P.S. Act is punishable with rigorous
imprisonment for a term which may extend to one
year, or with fine or with both only, it has to be
noted that the said offence is necessarily a bailable
one.

4. The aforesaid position was clarified in the decision
in Shaji v. Kerala State [2004 (3) KLT 270 (DB)] which
was subsequently followed in the decision
in Mathew v. State of Kerala [2008 (1) KLT 915]. When
there is an ambiguity in the caption of a particular
Section in an enactment with the contents of that
particular Section, the contents of the Section have
to be followed and one should not go by the caption
alone to arrive at the correct meaning of the
provision in the enactment.”
(Emphasis supplied)



- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5922
WP No. 2870 of 2026

HC-KAR


8.2. The High Court of Kerala, in the afore-quoted
judgments observes that an offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(A)
of the Act which is punishable with imprisonment of a term of
one year is necessarily a bailable offence and is not classified as
a non-bailable offence under Section 37 of the Act.

9. In light of the law laid down in afore-quoted
judgments, the petitioner/accused No.1 deserves to be released
on bail and the order remanding the petitioner to judicial
custody deserves to be quashed.

10. For the aforesaid reasons, the following order:
ORDER

[I] Writ Petition is allowed .
[II] Impugned Remand Order dated 13.01.2026 in
Crime No. 9/2026 of Mandi Police Station, Mysuru
City, Mysuru for the alleged offence punishable
under Section 20(b)(ii) (A) of Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 passed by the
Hon'ble III Additional Civil Judge and JMFC at


- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5922
WP No. 2870 of 2026

HC-KAR


Mysuru vide Annexure-A against the
petitioner/accused No.1, stands quashed.
[III] The petitioner shall be enlarged on bail in Crime
No.9/2026 registered by Mandi Police Station,
Mysuru City, Mysuru, subject to the following
conditions:
(a) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond
for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty
Thousand) with two solvent sureties for the
like-sum to the satisfaction of the
jurisdictional Court.
(b) The petitioner shall not threaten or allure the
prosecution witnesses in whatsoever manner.
(c) The petitioner shall appear before the
jurisdictional Court on all future hearing
dates, unless exempted by the concerned
Court.
(d) The petitioner shall not get involved in similar
offences.


- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5922
WP No. 2870 of 2026

HC-KAR


(e) The petitioner shall not leave the territorial
limits of the trial Court without prior
permission of the trial Court.
(f) The prosecution is at liberty to seek
cancellation of bail, in the event of any
violation, of the aforesaid conditions.




SD/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE


CBC
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 29
CT:SS