The High Court rejected the bail application of Pranab Ghosh regarding a charge of drug smuggling under Section 21 of the NDPS Act. Finding the seized contraband constituted a commercial quantity, the court was not inclined to grant bail.
Bail application rejected; Trial directed to conclude within a reasonable period.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
08.03.2021 Court No.28 Item No. 31 Krishnendu Bail Rejected
CRM 726 of 2021 (Via video Conference)
In Re:- An application for bail under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ;
And
In Re : Pranab Ghosh @ Babu Ghosh.
……Petitioner
Mr. Phiroze Edulji, Ms. Rajnandini Das, ….For the Petitioner
Mr. Sanjay Bardhan, Ms. Manisha Sharma
…….For the State
The present application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the petitioner in connection with Barasat Police Station FIR No. 465 of 2019 dated 26.08.2019 under section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (Case No. N-123 of 2019).
Mr. Edulji, learned advocate for the petitioner submits that in the instant case charge sheet was submitted on 30.09.2019 and supplementary charge sheet was submitted on 14.10.2020. According to the learned advocate, charge has been framed on 04.02.2021 and the prosecution has relied upon ten witnesses to prove its case.
Mr. Bardhan, learned advocate for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the quantity of contraband, so seized, was of commercial quantity and as such the provisions of Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act are attracted.
2
We have taken into account the period of detention of the petitioner and having regard to the fact that commercial quantity of contraband was seized from the petitioner, we are not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. As such, his prayer for bail is rejected.
However, as the petitioner is in custody since 26.08.2019 and the prosecution has relied upon ten witnesses to prove its case and the next date, so fixed for evidence, is on 25/26.03.2021, we direct the learned Trial Court to conduct the trial in a regular manner so that the same can be concluded within a reasonable period of time. We further direct that no unnecessary adjournment should be granted to either of the parties and all efforts must be taken for concluding the trial.
With the aforesaid observations, the application for bail, being CRM 726 of 2021, is disposed of.
(Tirthankar Ghosh, J) (Tapabrata Chakraborty, J)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner in a case involving commercial quantity of narcotic drugs under the N.D.P.S. Act.
Whether the impugned order denying bail can be set aside.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Pranab Ghosh @ Babu Ghosh
The State
Tirthankar Ghosh
Tapabrata Chakraborty
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
