Irfan Ali vs The State of Karnataka. Criminal Petition 101431/2020 decided on 8 December 2020.
Judgment Link: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/352702/1/CRLP101431-20-08-12-2020.pdf
Relevant paragraphs: 6. The learned counsel for petitioner has relied on a decision of this Court rendered in Criminal Petition No.1142/1991, in the case of Shankar Krishnasa Habib and Another Vs. State of Karnataka, decided on 16.09.1991. Relevant portion of para 11 of the said decision is extracted hereunder:
“11. ….. There is no explanation in the complaint or from the statements of other witnesses whether the house which was raided by the police on the date in question consisted of only these two persons or also the other members of the family. When prosecution says that the ganja was seized from the house of the petitioners, it could also have explained that who were in possession of ganja, whether these two petitioners or other persons who were staying in the house. Since all these questions are of doubtful in nature and whose correctness or veracity can be ascertained only when regular evidence is led in, I think this Court can hold at this stage what prosecution has not made out a case so as to connect the petitioners that they were in exclusive possession of ganja seized on 31.07.1991. Hence, the first ingredient of Section 30(b)(c) has been explained.”
7. The facts of the case in the above decision has some similarity to the facts of the present case. Bail granted.
Compiled by S. Basavaraj. Daksha Legal.
Daksha Legal 