Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Bibhas Ranjan De, J.
Manik Das @manik Chandra Das - Appellant
Versus
Narcotics Control Bureau - Respondent
C.R.M No. 6135 of 2021
Decided On : 28-01-2022
NDPS Act - Trafficking of Ganja - Section 43 - Section 67 - Section 37 - Section 65-B - Compliance with Section 42 - Call Detail Records - Bail Application
Fact of the Case:
The Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) received information about trafficking of Ganja and subsequently seized 215 k.g of Ganja from the suspects. The accused were arrested and their statements were recorded under section 67 of the NDPS Act. The defense argued non-compliance with section 42 of the NDPS Act and the unreliability of co-accused statements. The prosecution relied on call detail records (CDR) as crucial evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the stringent parameters for grant of bail under the NDPS Act must be adhered to, as per the decisions in Union of India Vs Shiv Shanker Kesari and Union of India Vs Prateek Shukla. The court emphasized the need for 'reasonable grounds to believe' the accused is not guilty and not likely to commit any offence while on bail, as per Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The court also addressed the compliance with Section 42 and the admissibility of electronic records under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act.
Issues: Compliance with Section 42 of the NDPS Act, reliability of co-accused statements, admissibility of call detail records, and the stringent parameters for grant of bail under the NDPS Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for 'reasonable grounds to believe' the accused is not guilty and not likely to commit any offence while on bail, as per Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The court also addressed the compliance with Section 42 and the admissibility of electronic records under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act.
Final Decision: The bail application was rejected based on the stringent parameters for grant of bail under the NDPS Act and the reliance on call detail records as crucial evidence.
JUDGMENT
Bibhas Ranjan De, J. - Facts In Brief:
1. (i) On 07.04.2021 one Sanjiv Kr. Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) attached to Kolkata Zonal Unit (KZU) received information in relation to trafficking substantial quantity of 'Ganja' by one Susanta Dey allies Ravi and Manik Chanrda Das with a car namely TATA ACE GOLD bearing Reg. No. WB 25J 4944 likely to be unloaded in the house of said Susanta Dey and then to supply to one Asim Mirdha.
(ii) The said information was reduced into writing and after intimating superior Officer a team of NCB Officers led by Superintendent, NCB (KZU), reached near the vicinity of the house of Susanta Dey at 20.15 hrs. At about 20.45 hours they found the said vehicle approaching the house of Susanta Dey. Thereafter two persons got down from the drivers cabin and started unloading nylon sacks. NCB team intervened and those two suspects disclosed their identity as Swapon Biswas and Susanta Dey.
(iii) NCB team then disclosed their identity and searched the five (5) numbers of nylon sacks containing greenish plant having odour similar to that of canabis/Ganja, in presence of local witness and both the suspects. Small amount from each sack was taken for testing with Drug detecting kit and found positive for the test of Ganja. Then entire contraband article weighing 215 k.g was seized under Section 43 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). Thereafter voluntary statement of both the suspects were recorded under Section 67 NDPS Act.
(iv) In course of follow up act the NCB team reached the house of Manik Das and Asim Mirdha. Though Manik Das was not found in his house but Asim Mirdha was found in the house and on being asked he disclosed that he was to procure the said Ganja through the arrangement made by Susanta Dey. Then he was also served with notice under section 67 of the NDPS Act and his statement was recorded.
(v) All seized articles were found to be Ganja by the examination report of chemical laboratory, Kolkata and the report was submitted before the learned jurisdictional Court on 25.06.2021. During investigation Asit Karmakar and Manik Das were arrested and their statements were recorded under section 67 NDPS Act. The mobile numbers used by accused persons were recovered from their possession and CDR linkage was found among them.
ARGUMENT ADVANCED:
2. (i) Mr. Sekhar Bose, Ld. Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner specially relied on the case of Tofan Singh Vs State of Tamil Nadu reported in(2021) 4 SCC 1 and thereby Mr. Bose tried to make this Court understand that the provision of section 42 (2) of the NDPS Act has not been complied with. In support of his contention Mr. Bose referred to paragraphs 62 to 66 of the reported judgment.
(ii) Mr. Bose further contended that the statement of co- accused is not at all reliable. He, in support of his contention, relied on a case of Surinder Kr. Khanna Vs Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, reported in (2018) 8 SCC 271.
(iii) Mr. Bose, again, submitted that the coordinate bench of this High Court ignored the statement of co-accused in CRM no 8145/2020 dated 21.12.2020 (In re: Abdul Malique & Ors), CRM No. 2829/2020 dated 20.10.2020 (In re: Ramesh Manju Bishnoi @ Ramesh Manju Bishnoy @ Ramesh Kumar Bishnoy) and CRM No 10765/2020 dated 14.07.2021 (In re: Samir Dey) and thereby other co-accused were granted bail.
3. (i) In opposition to that, Mr. Dastoor, Ld. Additional Solicitor General, appearing on behalf of the NCB (KJU) strenuously contended that even if we overlook the statement of co-accused in terms of decision of Tofan Singh's case (supra) we cannot ignore the call details report (CDR). In support of his contention he relied on the case of Union of India through NCB, Lucknow Vs Md. Nawaz Khan reported in 2021 (10) SCC 100.
(ii) Mr. Dastoor further contended that another coordinate bench of this Court in CRM No 1761 of 2021 dated 8.10.2021 (Manotosh Ghosh vs. The State
AI
The stringent parameters for grant of bail under the NDPS Act must be adhered to, as per Section 37, and the admissibility of electronic records under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act.
The court confirmed that under Section 37 NDPS Act, bail can only be granted if there are reasonable grounds for believing the accused is not guilty and unlikely to re-offend.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the stringent parameters for granting bail under the NDPS Act, emphasizing the gravity of drug trafficking offences and the legislative intent to p....
The judgment emphasizes the strict conditions for granting bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, requiring credible and plausible grounds to believe that the accused person is not guilty of the alle....
The court held that bail cannot be granted under the NDPS Act without satisfying the statutory requirements of demonstrating that the accused is not guilty of the offence and is unlikely to commit fu....
(1) Standard prescribed for grant of bail is ‘reasonable ground to believe’ that person is not guilty of offence.(2) Given seriousness of offences punishable under NDPS Act and in order to curb menac....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
