HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AGARTALA B.A.No.33 of 2025 Hriday Ali (Age-29 years), son of Jangsar Ali, resident of Purba Mog Pushkarani, P.O.-Abani Riyangpara, P.S.-R.K.Pur, District-Gomati Tripura ----Petitioner on behalf of Custody Accused Person Jangsar Ali (Age-50 years), son of late Asmat Ali, resident of Purba Mog Pushkarani, P.O.-Abani Riyangpara, P.S.-R.K.Pur, District-Gomati Tripura ---- Applicant(s)

Versus The State of Tripura (to be represented by the Secretary, Home Department), Government of Tripura ----Respondent(s)

[-

______________________________________________________

For Applicant(s) : Mr. Janardhan Bhattacharjee, Adv.

Mr. Sajib Ghosh, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Raju Datta, P.P.

Mr. Rajib Saha, Addl. P.P.

_________________________________________________________

HON‟BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWAJIT PALIT

Order

14/05/2025 This bail application under Section 483 of BNSS read with Section

37 of NDPS Act is filed for releasing of the custody accused namely Jangsar Ali on bail in connection with Khowai P/S Case No.2024/KHW/062 under Section

20(b)(ii)(C)/25/29 of NDPS Act.

[02] Heard Mr. J. Bhattacharjee, Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused in custody and also heard Mr. R. Datta, Learned P.P. appearing on behalf of the State-respondent. As ordered earlier, Learned P.P. has produced two numbers of CDs. One is relating to this case and another is regarding Ambassa P/S Case No.29/2024. Also received the LCRs.

(2)

[03] Taking part in the hearing, Mr. J. Bhattacharjee, Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused in custody submitted that this present accused is not FIR named. No contraband items were recovered from his possession and furthermore, no incriminating evidence revealed against him during investigation. Learned counsel further submitted that this accused is not FIR named accused in connection with Ambassa P/S Case No.29/2024 nor he is arrested in connection with that case. Furthermore, he is lodging in jail since last 167 days. Learned counsel again submitted that the principal accused of this case has already been granted bail and there is no scope to refuse the bail application of this accused and urged for releasing the accused on bail in any condition considering the period of his detention in custody.

[04] On the other hand, Mr. R. Datta, Learned P.P. appearing on behalf of the State-respondent strongly opposed the submission and referring the case diary of this present case and the Ambassa P.S. case as noted above submitted that in a case of this nature, it is not always necessary that the contraband items should be seized directly from the possession of a person and if it is found that any person directly or indirectly involved with any offence, in that case, during investigation there is no scope to grant privilege of Section 37 of NDPS Act. He further submitted that in Ambassa P/S Case notice was issued to the accused but he did not comply with that and from the statement of the witnesses it is clear that the offending vehicle of that case is belonging to his wife being a lady and the accused taking this advantage using that vehicle for carrying contraband items and since he was lodging in Khowai P/S, so, he could not be produced in connection with that case. Regarding the involvement of the present accused in connection with this case, he submitted that the defence story cannot be believed because he took the offending vehicle of the owner on hire rent and used the same for carrying contraband items. So prima facie all though there is no direct evidence that he possessed contraband items but his conspiracy or involvement cannot be ruled out in this (3)

case. He also referred few citations which would be discussed later on and finally urged for rejection of the bail application.

[05] I have heard both the sides at length and perused the case diary of both the cases. In this present case the prosecution was set into motion on the basis of an FIR laid by one Inspector Jugal Charan Tripura on 03.10.2024 to O/C