Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
TIRTHANKAR GHOSH
Safik Laskar @ Safiqul Laskar @ Pintu – Appellant
Versus
State of West Bengal – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Tirthankar Ghosh, J. :
Petitioners approached this Court with the following prayers: -
“a) A writ of and/or in the nature of Mandamus commanding the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and their men, agents, subordinates, superiors and successors in office and each one of them to forbear from giving any effect and/or further effect to the impugned order dated 25-08-2025 ( Annexure "P-4" of this writ petition) and an impugned notice dated 26-08-2025 ( Annexure "P-5" to this writ petition) in any manner whatsoever and to recall, rescind, withdraw and cancel the impugned order dated 25-08-2025 ( Annexure "P-4" of the writ petition and the impugned notice dated 26-08-2025 (Annexure "P-5" of the writ petition) forthwith;
b) A writ of and/or in the nature of Certiorari directing the respondents concerned and their men, agents, subordinates, superiors and successors in office and each one of them to forthwith transmit, certify and produce all the relevant papers, documents and records including the impugned order dated 25- 08-2025 (Annexure "P-4" to the writ petition) and the impugned notice dated 26-08-2025 (Annexure "P-5" to the writ petition) and do conscionable justice by quashing the same;
The court upheld the seizure of properties under the NDPS Act, emphasizing the necessity of demonstrating a direct link between properties and illegal narcotics activities for forfeiture.
The burden of proof lies on the accused to demonstrate that properties are not illegally acquired under the NDPS Act, with the competent authority's findings upheld due to insufficient evidence.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the freezing and forfeiture orders under the NDPS Act must fail if the detention order against the individuals associated with the properties ....
Acquittal from drug charges leads to mandatory release of seized properties under Section 68Z(2) of the NDPS Act.
The court affirmed the seizure of funds under the UAPA, establishing that the funds were proceeds of terrorism linked to extortion activities by a terrorist organization.
Petitioner's claim of personal use for seized narcotics was rejected; court deemed LSD a commercial quantity under NDPS Act, validating the ongoing investigation.
Strict adherence to the NDPS Act's provisions regarding search and seizure is essential; failure to comply can lead to the invalidation of evidence and grant of bail.
Confiscation of vehicle under the NDPS Act requires adherence to procedural fairness, including providing notice and opportunity for hearing to claimants, regardless of their conviction status.
The stringent bail conditions under the NDPS Act and the need for substantial probable causes to grant bail.
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
