Dismissed

Sk Nasim @Pappu and Anr. v. State of West Bengal

Calcutta HC15 Mar 2021CRM/753/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge rejected bail application filed under Section 439 CrPC in connection with an NDPS case. The court held that recovery of contraband above commercial quantity triggered Section 37 of the NDPS Act, rendering bail unjustifiable at that stage despite parity arguments and alleged procedural lapses under Section 52A.

What did the court decide?

Bail prayer rejected; petitioners to remain in custody.

Sk Nasim @Pappu and Anr. Vs State of West Bengal — Narcotics (NDPS) | Calcutta HC (2021)

¶1

15.03.2021

¶2

Item No.16 Ct.No.28 dc. Rejected

¶3

C.R.M. 753 of 2021

¶4

(Via Video Conference)

¶5

In Re : An Application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶6

And In the matter of : Sk. Nasim alias Pappu & Anr. ... Petitioners. Mr. Jyoti Prakash Chatterjee ... For the Petitioners. Mr. Sanjoy Bardhan, Ms. Manisha Sharma ... For the State.

¶7

The present application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the petitioners in connection with NDPS Case No. 32 of 2020 arising out of Serampore P.S. Case No. 173 of 2020 dated 23.06.2020 under Sections 21(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.

¶8

The learned advocate appearing for the petitioners prays for bail on the ground of parity stating that one Md. Jalil @ Jang, who is similarly situated with the petitioners, was enlarged on bail by an order dated 1^st December, 2020 in CRM 8037 of 2020. He further argues that the provisions of Section 52A of N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 were not complied with. Upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet has also been filed and as such, further detention of the petitioners, who

¶9

¶10

are in custody for about 260 days, is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶11

Mr. Bardhan, learned advocate appearing for the State opposes the petitioners’ prayer and draws our attention to the seizure list and states that contraband substance, above commercial quantity, was recovered from the joint possession of the petitioners. He further denies that the provisions of Section 52A of N.D.P.S. Act were not complied with. He further submits that the petitioners are having criminal antecedents.

¶12

We have perused the materials in the case diary including the seizure list. The argument as advanced that the provisions of Section 52A of the N.D.P.S. Act had not been complied with, is not acceptable to us. In view thereof and as contraband substance, above commercial quantity, was recovered from the joint possession of the petitioners, we are of the opinion that the provision of Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act is attracted and as such, the petitioners’ prayer for bail is rejected at this stage.

¶13

The application for bail, being CRM 753 of 2021, is, thus, dismissed.

¶14

(Tirthankar Ghosh, J.) (Tapabrata Chakraborty, J.)

Sk Nasim @Pappu and Anr. v. State of West Bengal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sk Nasim @Pappu and Anr. v. State of West Bengal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jagannath Pramanik and Ors. Vs State of West Bengal

Somnath Roy Vs State of West Bengal

Babu Chandra Ghosh Vs State of West Bengal

Kartick Dutta Vs State of West Bengal

Alamin Mallick Vs State of West Bengal

Ramji Mondal Vs State of West Bengal