Rakesh Singh @ Rakesh Kumar Singh vs State of West Bengal

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(Cal) 367

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE
ARIJIT BANERJEE, BIVAS PATTANAYAK, JJ.
Rakesh Singh @ Rakesh Kumar Singh – Appellant
Versus
The State of West Bengal – Respondent
C.R.M 3152 of 2021
Decided on : 24-11-2021

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Sekhar Basu, LD. Sr. Adv. Mr. Rajdeep Majumder, Adv. Mr. Mayukh Mukherjee, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. S.N. Mookherjee, Ld. A.G., Mr. Saswata Gopal Mukherjee, Ld. PP. Mr. Sanjay Bardhan, Adv. Mr. Md. Sabir Ahmed, Adv. Mr. Rudradipta Nandy, Adv. Mr. Ranadeb Sengupta, Adv.

Headnote:
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 21(b)/29 and 27A - Criminal Procedure Code,1973 - Section 164 76 gms of cocaine was recovered - Charge sheet - Custody - Seeks bail - Held, Considering past history of petitioner which Court have adverted to above, there is nothing on record to suggest that he is likely to commit an offence under NDPS Act while on bail - Court are of view that restriction in Section 37 of NDPS Act would not apply - Assessing nature and gravity of alleged offence and material on record and also in view of fact that petitioner has been in custody, Court are of view that the petitioner qualifies for bail but on stringent conditions - Application for bail is allowed - CRM No. 3152 of 2021 is accordingly disposed of.

JUDGMENT :

Arijit Banerjee, J.

1. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with NDPS Case No. 17/21 corresponding to New Alipore P.S Case No. 65/2021, dated 19.02.2021 initiated under Sections 21(b)/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short the “NDPS Act”) pending before the Court of the Learned Judge, Special Court under the NDPS Act cum Additional Sessions Judge, 4th Court at Alipore. The petitioner was arrested on 23.02.2021 and is in custody since then. The charge sheet was submitted on 03.05.2021, wherein Section 27A of the NDPS Act was added.

2. The argument of Mr. Sekhar Basu learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner may be summarised as follows:-

(i) There was no recovery of contraband item (cocaine) from the possession of the petitioner. About 76 gms of cocaine was recovered from a motor car in which three persons were found, viz, Somnath Chattopadhay, Prabir Kumar De, and Pamela Goswami.

(ii) The petitioner has been implicated on the basis of statements made by the aforesaid three persons who are co-accused, but whose names are not included in the charge sheet. Statements of co-accused persons are not admissible in evidence.

(iii) Intermediate quantity of narcotics is involved. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Sami Ullaha v. Superintendent, Narcotic Central Bureau, 2009 CRI LJ 1306 observed that where intermediate quantity of contraband is involved, “the rigours of the provisions of Section 37 of the Act relating to grant of bail may not be justified”.

(iv) The initial prosecution case and the case in the charge sheet are diametrically opposite. Initially the case was that acting on source information, the police apprehended Somnath, Prabir and Pamela in a car. Upon interrogation, they pointed out where in the car the contraband item was concealed. The prosecution case in the charge sheet is that the petitioner planted the contraband item in the concerned car to put the aforesaid three persons in trouble as an act of revenge.

(v) There is no material on record even to prima facie support the charge under Section 27A of the NDPS Act (financing illicit traffic and harbouring offenders).

(vi) Section 42 of the NDPS Act has not been complied with.

(vii) Several criminal cases may be pending against the petitioner, but none of them is under the provisions of the NDPS Act. Only in one case the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to one year imprisonment for entering into a scuffle with a police officer in a court premises. Such sentence was subsequently suspended by the Appeal Court.

(viii) This is a politically motivated case and the petitioner has been framed. The false case has been prompted by the factum of the petitioner renouncing the membership of one political party and joining a rival political party.

3. The argument of learned Advocate General opposing the petitioner’s bail prayer on behalf of the State may be summarised as follows:-

(i) The NDPS Act the special statute aimed at consolidating and amending the law relating to Narcotic Drugs, to make stringent provisions for the control and regulation of operations relating to Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic substances, to provide for the forfeiture of property derived from, or used in illicit traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, to implement the provisions of the international conventions on Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances and for matters connected therewith. The provisions of the Act should be strictly enforced to curb the menace of drug trafficking which has a highly damaging effect on the society at large.

(ii) The petitioner is the kingpin of a drug racket. Naturally, he will not come in the fore-front and indulge in any overt act. He will pull the strains from behind the curtain as in this case.

(iii) There is sufficient material to support the charge under Section 27A of the NDPS Act. Hence, the restrictions in Section 37 of the Act are attracted.

(iv) The petitioner has been charge sheeted on