The granting of bail under the NDPS Act must strictly adhere to statutory requirements; mere absence of contraband possession does not negate the necessity for robust scrutiny of evidence against the accused.

ORDER :

Biswajit Palit, J.

1.This is an application under Section 483 (3) read with Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for cancellation of interim bail granted to the respondent-accused namely, Sri Badal Miah vide order dated 06.09.2024 in connection with case No.2024 AMT 104 under Section 21 (b)/22(c)/23/25/27/27(A)/29 of NDPS Act.

2. Heard Learned P.P., Mr. Raju Datta appearing on behalf of the State-petitioner and also heard Learned Counsel, Mr. P. Sen Choudhury appearing on behalf of the respondent-accused.

3. Taking part in the hearing, Learned P.P. first of all drawn the attention of the Court that on the basis of an FIR laid by one Om Prakash Swami, Assistant Commandant of 42 Bn BSF to O/C Amtali Police Station on 19.08.2024, this present case was registered and in course of investigation, the principal accused, Ibrahim Miah was arrested and taken into custody as a considerable quantum of contraband item of commercial quantity was found under his possession. Thereafter, in course of investigation, the I.O. of this case produced the accused under arrest before the Court of Learned Special Judge, Court No.4, Agartala, West Tripura on 06.09.2024 and on that day the Learned Special Judge without application of proper mind granted interim bail to the said respondent-accused till 30.09.2024 and after that on 30.09.2024 his period of interim bail was further extended till 05.11.2024 and on that day, Learned Special Judge further extended the period of interim bail till 18.12.2024 and on 18.12.2024 Learned Special Judge again extended the period of interim bail till 25.01.2025 with an observation that Section 37 of NDPS Act would not attract in this case. Learned P.P. in course of hearing submitted that the Learned Special Judge without application of proper mind misinterpreted and misread the provision of Section 37 of NDPS Act and allowed the bail to the respondent-accused which was illegal and unwarranted by law and legally not permissible in the eye of law.

4. Learned P.P. further submitted that there are sufficient materials showing implication of the present accused with the alleged crime but simply on the ground that “nothing was found under his possession” by the I.O. cannot be a sole ground for granting bail to him in view of the principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in different cases. So, in summing up, Learned P.P. submitted that the order passed by Learned Special Judge was without non-application of mind, as such the interference of the Court is required and urged for setting aside the order dated 06.09.2024 passed by Learned Special Judge, Court No.4, West Tripura, Agartala in granting interim bail to the respondent-accused and referred few citations.

5. On the other hand, Learned Counsel representing the respondent-accused submitted that on 06.09.2024 the respondent-accused was produced under arrest before the Learned Special Court and on that day after hearing both the sides and considering the Case Diary, Learned Special Judge granted interim bail to the accused. Learned Counsel further submitted that in the FIR there was no implication of the respondent-accused showing his involvement with the alleged crime and in course of investigation no contraband item was found under his possession for his detention in custody. So, Learned Special Judge considering the materials on record rightly granted bail to the respondent-accused by order dated 06.09