Point of Law: Interim Bail on medical grounds - Indulge in supply of wholesale and retail cocaine - Petitioner's medical condition is concerned; documents on record do no suggest any immediate medical treatment or hospitalization - No ground to grant interim bail as well to petitioner.

JUDGMENT :

MUKTA GUPTA, J.

1. By Bail Application No. 1416/2021 the petitioner seeks regular bail in case FIR No. 61/2019 under Sections 21/25/29 of the NDPS Act registered at PS Crime Branch and in the alternative interim bail on the ground of his ill-health.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that immediately after the registration of the FIR an application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. was filed before the Court for making the mobile phone call records of the petitioner, co-accused and the members of the raiding party available, which would show that on the date of incident i.e. 14th March, 2019 all the mobile phones including that of the petitioner, co-accused and raiding team were switched off for a particular period of time. The petitioner was in fact picked up from his house and falsely implicated in this case. The manner in which recovery is sought to be made from the petitioner is highly improbable and clearly shows that the petitioner has been falsely implicated. No public witness has been associated with the recovery. There is non-compliance of Section 52-A of the NDPS Act on which ground alone the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail in terms of the decision of the Supreme Court reported as Union of India vs. Mohanlal and Another, (2016) 3 SCC 379 which decision has been followed by this Court. Reliance is also placed on the decision of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Crl. Appeal No. 543/2008 Nirmal Kumar Jana vs. State of West Bengal.

3. As regards the interim bail on medical grounds is concerned, it is contended that the petitioner is suffering from various respiratory ailments including asthma and was treated at Central Jail Hospital Mandoli for the same where he was prescribed various medications. Due to incarceration of the petitioner, wife of the petitioner has been physically and mentally affected. The wife of the petitioner is suffering from severe osteoporosis, depression and had to undergo a hip surgery and needs support. The petitioner was granted interim bail vide order dated 22nd April, 2020 which was extended from time to time. The interim bail of the petitioner was further extended and on completion thereof he surrendered on 31st March, 2021.

4. Learned APP for the State has taken this Court to the facts stated in the FIR. He further states that pursuant to the order of this Court, the status report also notes the CDR analysis and copies of the CDRs have been annexed as Annexure-A which clearly show that the petitioner was in regular contact with the co-accused Mohan Rai Arora @ Monu on his mobile No. 8860127771. There were as many as 7 calls between the petitioner and the co-accused between 7.10 PM to 11.22 PM on 14th March, 2019. The petitioner’s CDR shows that on 14th March, 2019 at 11.32 PM the petitioner was at the spot from where he was apprehended along with the co-accused Mohan Rai Arora at 11.35 PM by the raiding team led by ASI Ashok Kumar. Thus, no case for false implication is made out by the petitioner and the contention raised by the petitioner cannot be gone into in this bail application unless the witnesses have explained the facts in their cross-examination. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that Section 52-A NDPS Act has not been complied with and hence petitioner is entitled to bail is also incorrect. Section 52-A of the NDPS Act is applicable for the final disposal of the narcotic drugs and psychotropic substance during trial or at the appellate stage. The purpose of Section 52-A is for safe disposal and destruction of the seized narcotic drugs and psychotropic substance so as to eliminate the chances of recycling of the same. Reliance of learned counsel for the petitioner on the decision in Union of India vs. Mohanlal and Another (supra) is misconceived and has no application to the facts of the present case. Further, the petitioner has also not made out any case for grant of interim bail as there is no medical report of the petitioner s