IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AT AGARTALA
Arindam Lodh, J.
Rumpa Debnath (Bhowmik) - Appellants
Vs.
The State of Tripura - Respondent
B.A. No. 71 of 2020
Decided On : 04-09-2020
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act - Section 37, 22(b)/27A/25/29 – Criminal Procedure Code,1973 - Section 439 - Recovered contraband articles - Heroin - Charged - Bail application - Police Station received an information from credible source that huge quantity of contraband drugs (heroin) was stored illegally in house of one, a resident within jurisdiction of NCC police station - It was further disclosed by source that said and his other partners were also present at that time, and if raid was not conducted instantly, in that case, they would dispose of or conceal said contraband substances - Said Duty Officer after receipt of information had shared the same - During search operation, police personnel recovered contraband articles, weighing approximately 18.06 gms of heroin with 30 number of vials containing 0.04 gms, 7 numbers of mobile sets and cash amount - Whether a person who has not been charged for committing offence punishable – Held, Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that accused shall not evade trial and will attend on each and every dates as would be fixed by learned trial Judge and he may be released on any terms and conditions imposed by this Court - More so, due to present pandemic situation on account of COVID-19 virus, Court cannot foresee resumption of trial shortly - bail application in hand stands allowed in above terms - It is made clear that if any of aforesaid conditions is violated, benefit of bail in favour of accused person would be cancelled - It is to be mentioned herein that observations made herein, shall not construe case on merits to proceed with trial and to arrive at a logical conclusion of case - Bail application in hand stands allowed in above terms.
JUDGMENT :
Arindam Lodh, J.
1. Heard Mr. S. Lodh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. R. Datta, learned P.P. appearing for the State-respondent.
2. This is an application filed under Section 439 of CrPC, 1973 read with Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act, for short) for granting bail of the accused-person, namely, Jitendra Bhowmik, who was arrested on 24.01.2019 in connection with Special NDPS Case No. 08 of 2019 under Sections 22(b)/27A/25/29 of the NDPS Act, and till now he is in custody.
3. The relevant facts, necessary to be introduced for deciding the present bail application, are that the accused-person was arrested on 24.01.2019 at night, at about 2135 hours from the house of one Tutan Dey @ Manta of 79 Tilla, Agartala, West Tripura in connection with the above noted case as encrypted in the bail application.
The Duty Officer, NCC Police Station received an information from credible source that huge quantity of contraband drugs (heroin) was stored illegally in the house of one Tutan Dey, a resident within the jurisdiction of NCC police station. It was further disclosed by the source that the said Tutan Dey and his other partners were also present at that time, and if raid was not conducted instantly, in that case, they would dispose of or conceal the said contraband substances. The said Duty Officer after receipt of the information had shared the same with the Addl. S.P. (Urban), West, SDPO, NCC P.S. as well as SP, West. Necessary G.D. entry was made vide NCC P.S. G.D. No. 37 dated 24.01.2019.
4. Thereafter, the police personnel including SDPO, NCC P.S. raided the house of Tutan Dey, where they also found Jitendra Bhowmik, the petitioner herein and Dipankar Das. During search operation, police personnel recovered contraband articles, weighing approximately 18.06 gms of heroin with 30 number of vials containing 0.04 gms, 7 numbers of mobile sets and cash amount of Rs. 33,140/- and the same were seized. Tutan Dey including the present accused were arrested from the spot.
5. Here, it is to be mentioned that after completion of investigation, I.O. submitted charge-sheet against all the accused-persons including the present accused-person, namely, Jitendra Bhowmik.
6. After framing of charge on 16.02.2019, the wife of the present accused person, presented a bail application before this Court vide B.A. No. 104 of 2019 which was rejected on 27.09.2019 with a direction that the learned Special Judge would frame charge immediately and complete the trial expeditiously.
7. Charges were framed under Sections 22(b)/25 of NDPS Act against the present accused-person and calendar was fixed for examination of prosecution witnesses, w.e.f. 16.01.2020 to 22.01.2020. During that calendar, only one witness was examined and cross-examined. In the next calendar w.e.f. 25.02.2020 to 27.02.2020, only three witnesses were examined and cross-examined.
8. In the charge-sheet, I.O. had cited 12 witnesses. Four witnesses, namely, Sri. Dipankar Choudhury, PW-1, S.I. Shyamal Kanti Majumder, PW-2, Ezekiel Tripura, PW-3 and Smti. Anju Urang were examined and cross-examined. After their examination, trial could not be proceeded due to pandemic situation now prevailing in the entire State.
9. Mr. Lodh, learned counsel appearing for the accused-person has urged this bail application mainly on the following grounds:
(i) As the charge has been framed under Section 22(b) and Section 25 of the NDPS Act, the rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act is not applicable, only the limitations/restrictions as embodied in Chapter XXXIII of Criminal Procedure Code (for short, CrPC) is applicable. In the instant case, since the accused-person has been in custody for about 1 year and 6 months, and there is no chance of progress of trial in near future, he is entitled to be released on bail;
(ii) One of the charge-sheeted co-accused, namely, Smti. P. Dey, has already been released on bail, and it has not been challenged in the higher
Union of India Vs. Mohanlal & Anr.
Prabhulal v. Assistant Director, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence
G. Srinivas Gaud v. State of A.P.
Karnail Singh v. State of Hariyana
Union of India v. Ram Samujh and Ors.
Narcotics Control Bureau Vs. Kishan Lal and Ors.
Sami Ullaha vs. Narcotic Central Bureau
Union of India vs. Rattan Mallik alias Habul
Satpal Singh Vs. State of Punjab
Henrietta Muir Edwards v. A.G. of Kanada
Wazir Chand Mahajan v. Union of India, AIR 1967 SC 990
Pakala Narayan Swami v. Emperor, AIR 1939 PC 47
Bola v. B.D. Sardana, AIR 1997 SC 3127, pp. 3208
Sardar Gurmej Singh v. Sarder Pratap Singh Kairon, AIR 1960 SC 122
SupremeToday
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.