Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(Tri) 132

HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AGARTALA
S.G. Chattopadhyay, J.
Bikash Ray - Appellant
Versus
State of Tripura - Respondent
A.B. No. 78 of 2021
Decided On : 10-11-2021

Advocates appeared:
Mr. S. Lodh, Advocate, for the Petitioner(s); Mr. R. Datta, P.P, for the Respondent(s)

Granting pre-arrest bail under the NDPS Act requires stringent evidence of the accused's non-involvement; evidence against the petitioner established connection to significant drug trafficking activities, denying bail.

Headnote:(A) NDPS Act, 1985 - Sections 20(b)(ii)

(C), 25, 27A, 29 and 32 - Application for pre-arrest bail - Accused apprehended for involvement in trafficking 3390 Kg dried ganja - Previous bail applications for co-accused were granted, yet current bail application denied based on the accused's substantial involvement and maintaining communication with other accused - Important consideration for bail includes the commercial quantity of contraband and the ongoing investigation. (Paras 1-11)

(B) Legal Standard for Bail - The Supreme Court emphasized in Union of India v. Md. Nawaz Khan the necessity of establishing 'reasonable grounds' to believe an accused has not committed an offence under NDPS - The strict standards set by Section 37 NDPS Act for bail highlight the need for careful judicial review without leniency when dealing with commercial quantities of narcotics. (Paras 6, 11)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, alongside other individuals, was implicated in a drug trafficking case following the seizure of a substantial quantity of ganja. Prior bail for co-accused was cited for parity, but substantial evidence against the petitioner contradicted the argument for bail.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioner was significantly involved as evidenced by a history of phone communications with a key conspirator and previous charge sheets.

Issues: The primary question was whether the substantial evidence warranted the denial of pre-arrest bail despite previous grants for co-accused.

Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that due to the commercial nature of the contraband and the evidence presented, pre-arrest bail was inappropriate, reiterating that bail cannot be granted without fulfilling the strict criteria under Section 37 NDPS Act.

Result: Bail application rejected.

JUDGMENT

This is an application under section 438 Cr.P.C for granting pre-arrest bail to Bikash Ray, petitioner who is apprehending arrest in Bishalgarh PS case No.2021/BLG/059 which has been registered under sections 20(b)(ii)(C), 25, 27A, 29 and 32 of the NDPS Act, 1985.

[2] Similar application was earlier considered by this court in A.B 66 of 2021 and after consideration of the grounds advanced by the petitioner as well as the submissions of learned P.P, the said application was rejected by an order dated 17.09.2021.

[3] The facts of the case may be reproduced from the said order dated 17.09.2021 which is as under:

“[3] The bare facts essential for disposal of the bail application is as under:

Sri Parthanath Bhowmik, Inspector of Police of Bishalgarh police station lodged suo motu written FIR with the Officer in Charge of Bishalgarh police station alleging, inter alia, that on 24.07.2021 he received an information from own source that a truck bearing registration No. TN47-AT 4858 (Ashok Leyland Truck) was coming towards Bishalgarh from Udaipur and the said vehicle was carrying dried ganja. Sri Bhowmik recorded the said information in the general diary of the police station vide GD entry No. 8 dated 24.07.2021 and procured permission from the jurisdictional Superintendent of Police to step into action. Then, he along with required number of Officers and Staff left the police station vide GD entry No. 10 dated 24.07.2021 and started noticing the vehicles which were coming from the said direction. The suspected vehicle arrived in front of Bishalgarh police station at 05.45 am and the same was detained by the police team. Driver Selvaraj K of Tamil Nadu told the police team that the vehicle was carrying rubber sheet. When police undertook a search in the said vehicle, the driver tried to flee away. He was however, detained and brought to police station for interrogation. With the help of interpreter, police interrogated him for about three hours and came to know that during the previous night rubber sheet was loaded in his vehicle from a place called Madhab Bari at Jirania. Thereafter, he was taken to a place between Tepania and Killa in Gomati Tripura for loading dried ganja where he noticed huge quantity of dried ganja stored in a place and he learnt from the conversation of the people that Bishu Kumar Tripura was the owner of the said contraband. 3390 Kg dried ganja wrapped in rubber sheets was recovered from the said vehicle and the same was seized in presence of witnesses.

[4] Pursuant to the said FIR lodged by Inspector Parthanath Bhowmik, Bishalgarh PS case No. 2021/BLG/059 under Sections 20 (b)(ii)(C), 25, 27A, 29 and 32 of the NDPS Act, 1985 was registered and investigation of the case was taken up.”

[4] Heard Mr. S. Lodh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R. Datta, learned P.P. representing the State respondent.

[5] It is contended by Mr. Lodh, learned counsel that on the same set of allegations and on the same set of incriminating materials, accused Bishu Kumar Tripura was granted pre-arrest bail by this court by an order dated 20.08.2021 passed in A.B 58 of 2021 and another accused namely Naithak Jamatia was also granted anticipatory bail by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sepahijala District, Bishalgarh by his order dated 31.08.2021 in Bail Application No. 33 of 2021. Counsel contends that the learned Additional Sessions Judge considered the materials available against the accused at length and by a detailed and reasoned order he granted anticipatory bail to Naithak Jamatia, accused petitioner. Counsel, therefore, submits that the present accused namely, Bikash Ray deserves equal treatment and his bail application may be considered by this court on the ground of parity. Counsel submits that no contraband was recovered from the physical possession of the present petitioner and the materials collected by the investigating agency do not even remotely connect him to the alleged crime. Learned counsel,