Syed Sadath @ Saddu @ Sadath v. State of Karnataka

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 11636 OF 2026 BETWEEN:

SYED SADATH @ SADDU @ SADATH, S/O. SYED SATAJ, AGED 29 YEARS, R/O. ZAGIRDAR MOHALLA, NALAGALLI, KAMMAVARIPET, NEAR JAMIA MASIJID, HOSAKOTE TALUK, BENGALURU DISTRICT - 562114. …PETITIONER (BY SRI HASMATH PASHA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI NASIR ALI, ADVOCATE) AND:

¶1STATE OF KARNATAKA BY K.R.PURAM POLICE STATION, BENGALURU CITY 560036 (REPRESENTED BY LEARNED STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU 560 001).

¶2NARAYANA GOWDA, POLICE INSPECTOR, CCB POLICE (W AND D), NT-PETE, BENGALURU - 560002. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI NAGHARISH G S, HCGP FOR R1)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNNS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO a) QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS PENDING IN

Digitally signed by PRAMILA G V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

SPL.CC.NO.2205/2023 ON THE FILE OF HONBLE XXXIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE FOR NDPS CASES, BENGALURU, WHICH IS ARISING OUT OF CR.NO.398/2018,FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 20(b)(ii)(b) OF NDPS ACT IN FIR AND COMPLAINT ON THE FILE OF K.R.PURAM POLICE STATION, BENGALURU CITY, AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND D COPY OF MAHAZAR AS AN ABUSE OF PROCESS OF LAW AND ETC.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

ORAL ORDER

Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for the respondent.

¶2This petition is filed to quash the proceedings in Special C.C. No.2205/2023 pending before the Sessions Judge and Special Judge for NDPS Cases, Bengaluru.

¶3The proceedings arising out of Crime No.398/2018 for the offences alleged under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

¶4Learned Senior Counsel Sri Hasmath Pasha appearing for the petitioner would submit that in addition to the

prayer to quash the proceedings, the petitioner is also assailing the order dated 11.02.2020 issuing non bailable warrant.

¶5It is submitted that the cognizance was taken on

07.02.2020 fixing the date of appearance as 11.02.2020. Later, the charge sheet was split and the case is now re-numbered as Spl. C.C. No.2205/2023.

¶6In Special C.C. No.74/2020, summons were issued on 07.02.2020 fixing the date of appearance as 11.02.2020. Accused no.1 appeared in that matter and petitioner/accused no.2 did not appear and the non-bailable warrant was issued.

¶7Learned Senior Counsel would submit that there is no report stating that the accused no.2/petitioner has evaded the summons. There is no report stating that the summons is served on him and the non-bailable warrant could not have been issued.

¶8It is his further submission that accused no.2 was on anticipatory bail when the cognizance was taken and same is in force.

¶9In addition it is also further submitted that no ground is made out in the charge sheet to prosecute the petitioner.

¶10Learned Additional State Public Prosecutor would submit that the petitioner/accused no.2 did not appear before the Trial Court on the given date appointed as such, the Court has taken note of his absence and issued non-bailable warrant and the same is challenged.

¶11In addition, learned Additional SPP would also submit materials in the charge sheet warrant trial as such, the petition to quash the proceedings cannot be entertained.

¶12The Court has considered the contentions raised and perused the records.

¶13As can be seen from the order sheet, on

07.02.2020, the Trial Court issued summons to the petitioner/accused no.2 in addition to accused no.1.

¶14It appears that on 11.02.2020 the day fixed for appearance accused No.1 appeared. However, accused No.2 did

not appear and non-bailable warrant was issued against the accused no.2.

¶15The order does not indicate that the accused No.2 was evading summons or that the summons is duly served.

¶16That being the position, the Court is of the view that the non bailable warrant could not have been issued against the petitioner/accused no.2.

¶17The present petition is filed on the apprehension that in case the petitioner files an application to recall the non bailable warrant, the Court may reject the application or the Court may take the petitioner to custody.

¶18Considering the fact that there is no report to show that the summons was served and to show that the petitioner was evading the summons, the Court is of the view that the petitioner should be permitted to appear before the Trial Court and furnish bail which is already granted.

¶19The Court has also taken note of the fact that the petitioner was granted anticipatory bail and the charge sheet is

already filed and there is no need to take the petitioner into custody at this stage.

¶20As far as the contention that there is no ground to frame the charges and proceed further, the Court is of the view that the petitioner can avail such remedy as advised in law, in case of no grounds to frame charges.

¶21If such remedy is availed, the same shall be considered in accordance with law. The Court has not entered into the merits of the contentions relating to charges. Hence, the following: ORDER

(i) Petition is allowed in part.

(ii) Order dated on 11.02.2020 issuing non bailable warrant is recalled.

(iii) The petitioner shall appear before the Trial Court within two weeks from today, and in case the petitioner furnishes the bail in terms of the order granting anticipatory bail the petitioner shall be released on bail.

All other contentions are kept open.

(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE

CHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 61