SHUAIB NAWAB vs STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57523
CRL.P No. 11660 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010529202026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 13 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 11660 OF 2026
BETWEEN:
SHUAIB NAWAB
S/O LATE MA NAWAB
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
R/AT NO.89, SUMUKHA NEELADRI,
TH TH
FLAT NO.404, 4 FLOOR, 15 CROSS,
NEELADRI, BENGALURU,
KARNATAKA - 560 100.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. K S VISHWANATH, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. AKASH RAJU., ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY PARAPAPPANA AGRAHARA P.S
REPRESENTED BY:
THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU.
…RESPONDENT
Digitally
signed by
NANDINI D
Location:
HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
(BY SRI. CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP)
THIS CRL.P FILED U/S 439 CR.P.C (U/S 483 BNSS) BY
THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS
HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO RELEASE THE
PETITIONER ON BAIL IN SPL.CC.NO.1229/2026 ARISING OUT
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57523
CRL.P No. 11660 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010529202026
OF CR.NO.356/2025 REGISTERED BY PARAPPANA AGRAHARA
P.S., FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 8(C) AND 22(C) OF NDPS ACT,
ETC.,
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.2 in Special C.C.No.1229 of 2026,
pending before the Court of 33rd Additional City Civil and
Sessions Court, Bengaluru (CCH-33) arising out of Crime
No.356 of 2025 registered by Parappana Agrahara Police
Station, Bengaluru for the offences punishable under
Sections 8(c) and 22(c) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985 (for short, hereinafter referred to as
the 'NDPS Act') is before this Court in this petition filed
under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 seeking regular bail.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57523
CRL.P No. 11660 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010529202026
3. FIR in Crime No.356 of 2025 was registered by
Parappana Agrahara Police Station, Bengaluru for the
offences punishable under Sections 8 and 22 of the NDPS
Act, based on the first information dated 04.12.2025
received from one Sri.Sathish.B.S., Police Officer of
Parappana Agrahara Police Station, Bengaluru. In the raid
that was conducted subsequent to registration of FIR,
accused Nos.1 and 2 were apprehended and from the Cars
bearing Reg.No.HR-26 CB-0028 and KL-34 B-2445
contraband article allegedly Methamphetamine totally
weighing 300 grams was recovered and seized under a
panchanama. Accused Nos.1 and 2 were thereafter
arrested and remanded to judicial custody. After
completing investigation, charge-sheet is filed against
them for the aforesaid offences. Bail application filed by
the petitioner before the Trial Court in Crl.Misc.No.6377 of
2026 was rejected on 15.07.2026. Therefore, the
petitioner is before this Court.
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57523
CRL.P No. 11660 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010529202026
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
seized contraband article from the possession of the
petitioner totally weighs 100 grams. Accused No.1 from
whose possession 200 grams of contraband article was
seized has been enlarged on bail by the Trial Court in
Crl.Misc.No.1944 of 2026 vide order dated 17.03.2026.
He submits that Section 42 of the NDPS Act has not been
complied in the present case and therefore, the
subsequent recovery gets vitiated. He accordingly prays
to allow the petition.
5. Per contra, learned HCGP appearing for the
Respondent/State does not dispute the submission made
by the learned counsel for the petitioner. He however
brings to the notice of this Court that petitioner is a person
with criminal antecedents and he is involved in another
criminal case registered for similar offences and also
involved in three other criminal cases registered for the
offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code. He
accordingly prays to dismiss the petition.
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57523
CRL.P No. 11660 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010529202026
6. A reading of the first information dated
04.12.2025 submitted by one Sri.Sathish.B.S., Police
Officer attached to Parappana Agrahara Police Station,
Bengaluru would go to show that on 04.12.2025 at about
11.20 am, when he was in the police station, he had
received credible information to the effect that accused
Nos.1 and 2 named in the FIR were in possession of
contraband article allegedly MDMA., which they had kept
in their Cars bearing Reg.No.HR-26 CB-0028 and KL-34 B-
2445 and were attempting to sell the same to the public.
Based on the aforesaid credible information, FIR was
registered against accused Nos.1 and 2 for the aforesaid
offences and in the raid that was conducted subsequently
by one Smt.Keerthi Lakshmi, Police Officer - CW-2,
accused Nos.1 and 2 were apprehended and from the Car
bearing Reg.No.HR-26 CB-0028, which allegedly belong to
accused No.2, contraband article allegedly MDMA,
weighing 100 grams was recovered and from the Car
bearing Reg.No.KL-34 B-2445, contraband article
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57523
CRL.P No. 11660 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010529202026
allegedly MDMA weighing about 200 grams was recovered
and seized under panchanama. Subsequently, accused
Nos.1 and 2 who were arrested were produced before the
jurisdictional Court and remanded to judicial custody on
the same day.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner during the
course of arguments has submitted that the requirement
of Section 42 of the NDPS Act has not been complied
with, in the present case by the officer who had received
credible information.
8. A reading of Section 42 of the NDPS Act would
make it very clear that an officer who has received
credible information with regard to commission of offence
punishable under the provisions of NDPS Act is required to
reduce such information into writing in a prescribed
register and thereafter, forward the same to the higher
officer before proceeding further to investigate the case.
In the case on hand, such exercise has not been done by
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57523
CRL.P No. 11660 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010529202026
the police officer who has received credible information
and on the other hand, based on his information, FIR was
registered against accused Nos.1 and 2 and thereafter,
raid was conducted by CW-2 along with the staff, in which,
accused Nos.1 and 2 were apprehended and from their
possession, total quantity of contraband article allegedly
MDMA weighing 300 grams was recovered and seized
under a panchanama.
9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Darshan Singh Vs. State of Haryana reported in (2016)
14 SCC 358
has held that registration of FIR based on
credible information cannot be a substitute for compliance
of the requirements of Section 42 of the NDPS Act. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court at Paragraph Nos.12 and 13 in the
said case has observed as follows:
" 12. The solitary question that arises for our
consideration in the instant appeal, is whether the
registration of the first information report, narrating
the factual position as has already been described
at the beginning of this order, as also, the
communication of the first information report to the
Superintendent of Police, Panipat would constitute
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57523
CRL.P No. 11660 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010529202026
an effective compliance with the provisions
contained in Section 42 of the NDPS Act.
13. Having given our thoughtful
consideration to the submission advanced at the
hands of the learned counsel for the respondent,
we are of the view that the mandate contained in
Section 42(1) of the NDPS Act, requiring the
recording in writing, the details pertaining to the
receipt of secret information, as also, the
communication of the same to the superior officer
are separate and distinct from the procedure
stipulated under the provisions of the Criminal
Procedure Code. Sub-section (1) of Section 41 of
the NDPS Act provides that a Metropolitan
Magistrate or a Magistrate of the First Class or any
Magistrate of Second Class specially empowered by
the State Government may issue a warrant for the
arrest of any person whom he has reason to believe
to have committed any offence punishable under
Chapter IV. Sub-section (2) of Section 41 refers to
issuance of authorisation for similar purposes by
the officers of the Departments of Central Excise,
Narcotics, Customs, Revenue Intelligence, etc. Sub-
section (1) of Section 42 of the NDPS Act lays down
that the empowered officer if he has a prior
information given by any person, should necessarily
take it down in writing, and where he has reason to
believe from his personal knowledge, that offences
under Chapter IV have been committed or that
materials which may furnish evidence of
commission of such offences are concealed in any
building, etc. he may carry out the arrest or search,
without warrant between sunrise and sunset and he
may do so without recording his reasons of belie.
The two separate procedures noticed above are
exclusive of one another. Compliance with one,
would not infer compliance with the other. In the
circumstances contemplated under Section 42 of
the NDPS Act the mandate of the procedure
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57523
CRL.P No. 11660 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010529202026
contemplated therein will have to be followed
separately, in the manner interpreted by this Court
in Karnail Singh case [Karnail Singh v. State of
Haryana, (2009) 8 SCC 539 : (2009) 3 SCC (Cri)
887] and the same will not be assumed, merely
because the Station House Officer concerned had
registered a first information report, which was also
dispatched to the Superintendent of Police, in
compliance with the provisions of the Criminal
Procedure Code.".
10. The said view has been reiterated by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kashmir Ram @
Pappi Vs. State of Punjab reported in 2026 INSC 854
and in paragraph No.29 of the said order, it is observed as
follows:
"29. The proposition so laid down in Darshan
Singh case (supra) is unexceptionable and we
respectfully affirm it. The registration of an FIR and
its onward transmission through the ordinary
channels of the Code of Criminal Procedure are no
substitute for the distinct obligation which Section
42 casts, and compliance with the latter is not to be
assumed from the former. It is nevertheless
necessary to notice the precise vice at which that
proposition is directed. It is directed against an
assumption, and against the practice of treating the
registration of an FIR, without more, as discharging
an obligation which the statute casts separately and
independently. It does not enact a rule of exclusion,
whereby the circumstance that an FIR came to be
registered upon a writing emanating from the
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57523
CRL.P No. 11660 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010529202026
empowered officer himself is to be shut out from
consideration altogether when the Court comes to
determine, upon the totality of the material,
whether the statutory purpose has in fact been
served. The distinction is one between assuming
compliance from a single circumstance and
weighing that circumstance along with others, and
it is a distinction which the Courts below did not
overlook.
11. From the aforesaid, it is apparent that the
mandatory requirements of Section 42 of the NDPS Act
has not been complied in the present case. It is trite that
non-compliance of Section 42 of the NDPS Act would
vitiate the subsequent recovery of contraband article.
Since, section 42 of the NDPS Act has not been complied
in the present case, the rigor under Section 37(1)(b) of
the Act cannot be made applicable against the petitioner.
12. A reading of the recovery Mahazar would
indicate that from the possession of the petitioner,
contraband article allegedly MDMA seized weighed 100
grams, whereas, from the possession of accused No.1
contraband article allegedly MDMA weighed 200 grams.
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57523
CRL.P No. 11660 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010529202026
Accused No.1 has been granted regular bail by the Trial
Court in Crl.Misc.N0.1944 of 2026 vide order dated
17.03.2026. In the order passed by the Trial Court while
granting regular bail to accused No.1, it is observed that
the Court is of the considered view that there is no
material to prima-facie show that the contraband article
has been seized from the conscious possession of the
accused since the contraband article was seized from the
vehicle, which is not a public place.
13. Learned counsel for the petitioner has brought
to the notice of this Court that the sample of the seized
drug, which was forwarded to Forensic Science Laboratory,
Bengaluru for the purpose of chemical examination has
now tested positive to a drug known as
"Methamphetamine" and negative for MDMA.
14. In view of the aforesaid aspects of the matter, I
am of the opinion that the prayer made by the petitioner
for grant of regular bail needs to be answered in
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57523
CRL.P No. 11660 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010529202026
'affirmative', subject to appropriate conditions, considering
the fact that he is a person with criminal antecedents.
Accordingly, the following:
ORDER
The petition is allowed . The petitioner is directed to
be enlarged on bail in Spl.C.C.No.1229/2026, pending
rd
before the 33 Additional City Civil and Sessions Court,
Bengaluru (CCH-33), arising out of Crime No.356/2025
registered by Parappana Agrahara Police Station,
Bengaluru registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 8(c) and 22(c) of the NDPS Act, subject to the
following conditions:
a) Petitioner shall execute personal
bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One
Lakh only) with two sureties for the like-sum,
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;
- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57523
CRL.P No. 11660 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010529202026
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.
f) The petitioner is directed to appear
before the Station House Officer of Parappana
Agrahara Police Station, Bengaluru on every
second and fourth Sunday of the month
between 10.00 am and 1.00 pm and mark his
attendance, regularly, till the case registered
against him is disposed off.
Sd/-
(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY)
JUDGE
DH
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 47