Advocates:
['Mr S LODH', '', 'Mr D DATTA', 'PP']

HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA

AGARTALA

BA 59 of 2021

Mst. Sonaban Bibi

------------------Applicant(s)

W/O Taher Miah Choudhury@ Tahar

Of town Sonamura , P.S.-R.K.Pur

Gomati, Tripura onbehalf of

Taher Miah Choudhury @ Tahar ---------------------Accused(s)

Versus

The State of Tripura represented by PP, High Court of Tripura

----------------Respondent(s)

B E F O R E

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. CHATTOPADHYAY

For Applicant(s)

: Mr. S.Lodh, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ratan Datta, PP.

O R D E R

20.08.2021

Mst. Sonaban Bibi of Town Sonamura, Gomati Judicial

District has filed this application under Section 439 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973(Cr.P.C hereunder) for granting bail to her

accused husband Taher Miah Choudhury @ Tahar who has been

undergoing imprisonment in the District jail at Udaipur since his

arrest on 21.06.2021 in R.K.Pur P.S. Case No. 99 of 2021 which has

been registered under charges of offence punishable under Sections

21(b), 22(a),25,27A, 29 and 32 of the Narcotic Drugs and

Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985(NDPS Act hereunder).

Page 2 of 9

BA 59 of 2021

[2]

Factual background of the case is as under:

Sri Debabrata Biswas, Sub-Inspector of Police of

R.K.Pur Police Station lodged a suo moto complaint with the Officer

–in-Charge of R.K.Pur Police Station alleging, inter alia, that on the

basis of an information received from a reliable source, police raided

the house of the accused on 19..06.2021 at around 2.15 p.m and

recovered 0.460gms Heroin and SPASMO PROXYVON PLUS

capsule weighing 16.17 gms from his dwelling hut in presence of his

wife. The said contraband was found in the drawer of an Almirah in

his dwelling hut. As per the FIR statement, all statutory formalities

were observed before conducting raid in the house of the accused.

Written consent of his wife was procured for carrying out search in

the house and the entire search operation was carried out in presence

of woman members of police. It has been alleged in the FIR that the

accused stored the contraband in his house for selling the same to

consumers. During raid, 7 of such consumers were found present in

the house of the accused who came to buy the contraband from him.

All of them were arrested at the spot.

[3]

Based on the said FIR, R.K.Pur P.S. case No.99 of 2021

under Sections 21(b), 22(a),25,27A, 29 and 32, NDPS Act was

Page 3 of 9

BA 59 of 2021

registered and investigation of the case was taken up. In the course

of investigation, present accused was arrested on 21.06.2021.

[4]

Heard Mr.S.Lodh, learned counsel, appearing for the

petitioner.

Heard Mr.Ratan Datta, learned PP, representing the

state respondent.

[5]

Counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that

except the charge under Section 27A, NDPS Act, all other charges

brought against the petitioner involve small quantity and minimum

punishment prescribed for those charges is imprisonment for less

than 10 years with or without fine. Counsel, therefore, argues that in

view of Section 36A of the NDPS Act, the proviso to sub-section(2)

of Section 167 will apply in this case and the petitioner in no

circumstances can be detained for more than 60 days unless the

investigation is complete within the said statutory period. With

regard to application of Section 27A, NDPS Act, counsel argues that

clause (viii)(a) of Section 2, NDPS Act has been re lettered as clause

(viii)(b) by an amendment act of 2014 w.e.f. 01.05.2014. But no

consequential amendment has been made in Section 27A NDPS Act.

Counsel submits that the matter came for consideration before this

court in the case of Court on its own motion, High Court Of

Tripura Vs. Union of India represented by the Secretary to the

Page 4 of 9

BA 59 of 2021

Ministry of Home Affairs reported in 2021 SCC Online TRI 300 in

which it was observed by this court that unless the co