The conditions for granting bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act must be fulfilled, considering the gravity of the offense and the quantity of contraband involved. The restrictions imposed on the power of the court to grant bail should not be pushed too far.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, J.

1. Heard Shri Sishir Dutta, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Sidhant Dutta, learned counsel for the applicant, namely, Shri Anjan Nath, who has filed this bail application under Section 439 of the Cr.PC praying for bail in connection with Nilambazar PS No. 432/2021 (GR No. 3617/2021) under Sections 22(C)/25/29 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985.

2. The applicant was arrested on 15.03.2022.

3. Pursuant to the order of this Court, the scanned copies of the case records have been obtained.

4. Shri Dutta, the learned Senior Counsel, at the outset, has submitted that on earlier three occasions, the bail applications of the petitioner have been rejected by this Court. However, he submits that there are certain factors which were not placed before this Court in the proper perspective which he would like to highlight in the present case.

5. Attention of this Court have been drawn to the Forwarding Report dated 15.03.2022 concerning the arrest of the petitioner which contains the grounds of arrest. The same reflects that the petitioner had confessed his guilt; he is a drug dealer; there was sufficient mobile phone linkage with other drug peddlers as per CDR (Call Detail Reports).

6. Reference has thereafter been made to the Forwarding Report dated 23.03.2022 of co-accused Philip Kumar Dey which reflects the grounds of arrest that the present accused had confessed his guilt and implicated Philip Kumar Dey to be involved in the smuggling of drug like cigarette, betel nut (Burmese) and were communicating over mobile phone which was substantiated by CDR analysis and such communication has been suspected to be drug related conversation. Recovery of four cartons of foreign cigarettes was also made from the said accused Philip Kumar Dey.

7. Reference thereafter have been made to the seizure list dated 14.03.2022 annexed as Annexure-11 to the application, as per which, the only item recovered from the petitioner was one android mobile (OPPO).

8. The submission made on behalf of the petitioner is that the present petitioner is nowhere connected with any drug related offence and even as per the statement alleged to have been made by him before the Police, he is indulging in smuggling in foreign cigarettes and Burmese betel nut.

9. It is submitted that in the meantime, the other co-accused Philip Kumar Dey has been released on bail including the main accused Abdul Fatah. He submits that the arrest / detention of the petitioner is on certain presumption and even the CDR analysis has not been done to rope in the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner has completed about 525 days in custody as he was arrested on 15.03.2022.

10. The learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsing vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, (2005) 5 SCC 294. The said case pertains to the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 (MCOCA) and it is submitted that the provision for bail is similar to Section 37 of the NDPS Act. In the said case, it has been laid down that the restrictions imposed on the power of the Court to grant bail should not be pushed too far. It may however be mentioned that the petitioner in the said case was a former Commissioner of Police and the case related to the Stamp Paper scam popularly known as Telgi Case.

11. The learned Senior Counsel has also placed before this Court an order dated 30.04.2021 in a bunch of cases, the lead case being Bail Appln./126/2021 wherein the prayers for bail were allowed.

12. Per contra, Shri MP Goswami, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam has submitted that conscious possession of the contraband is not a sine qua non and constructive possession is itself sufficient to implicate an accused. He has referred to the statement of the petitioner made under Section 161 of the CrPC from which it would be evident about the involvement in drug trafficking.

13. Drawing the