Bail under NDPS Act requires the accused to demonstrate reasonable belief of innocence and no likelihood of re-offending; these conditions are cumulative and must be satisfied.

JUDGMENT

S.G. Chattopadhyay, J. - This bail application under section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed for releasing the accused namely Priya Lal Halder on bail who has been undergoing imprisonment since 16.09.2021 in case No. Special (NDPS) 27 of 2019 under sections 21(c) and 29, NDPS Act, 1985.

2. Successive applications of the accused for pre arrest bail were rejected by this court by orders dated 16.07.2021 and the subsequent order dated 10.09.2021. Thereafter, he surrendered at the police station on 16.09.2021. He has been undergoing imprisonment since then.

3. Heard Mr. B. Deb, counsel appearing for the petitioner along with Mr. S. Rahman, learned advocate. Also heard Mr. R. Datta, learned P.P. appearing for the State respondent along with Mr. S. Debnath and Mr. S. Ghosh, learned Addl. Public Prosecutors.

4. The factual context of the case is as under:

Mr. B. Debbarma, sub-inspector of police, Teliamura Police station lodged a suo moto FIR with the Officer-in-charge of Teliamura police station on 03.09.2019 alleging, inter alia, that on 02.09.2019 at around 0305 hours while he along with his accompanying staff was patrolling at National Highway-8, the vehicle bearing registration no. TR-01-AK-1572 was intercepted by his team at the area called Maiganga under Teliamura police station. The said vehicle was on its way from Silchar to Sonamura with vegetables loaded on it. Soon after the vehicle was stopped, driver of the said vehicle fled away. Search was carried out and huge quantity of contraband including 100 bottles of Phensedyl in a carton, 4375 bottles of Phensedyl of different batch in different cartons, 300 bottles of Escaf cough syrup etc. were recovered from inside the said vehicle which were hidden beneath the vegetables. The informant alleged that since the contraband was huge in quantity, it was not possible for a single accused to transport such goods.

5. Based on his FIR, the case was registered and investigation was taken up.

6. During investigation, accused Tajul Islam, husband of the owner of the offending vehicle surrendered at the police station who was granted default bail by the Special Court.

7. Mr. Deb, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the investigating agency has by this time laid charge sheet against the petitioner and therefore further detention of the petitioner would amount to pre trial detention which does not have the sanction of law. Counsel urges that the informant police officer has categorically asserted in his FIR that after the offending vehicle was intercepted and caught by the police patrolling party, there was only one person inside the vehicle who fled away from the place of occurrence and his identity could not also be established. It is contended by learned counsel that at a later point of time, Tajul Islam who was admittedly the driver of the vehicle surrendered at the police station. Counsel contends that from such facts and circumstances, it can be easily gathered that other than the driver there was none inside the vehicle at the time of its detention by police. Counsel contends that the materials available on record do not also make out a case under the NDPS Act against the petitioner. Therefore, there is no justification of his detention in custody. It is also contended by Mr. Deb, learned counsel that investigation of the case having been over, accused may be released on bail. According to learned counsel, accused has a permanent place of abode within the jurisdiction of the trial court and there is no chance of his fleeing away from the place of trial. It