Allowed

Abdul Miah v. State of West Bengal

Calcutta HC11 Mar 2021CRM/8100/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed an application for anticipatory bail filed by Abdul Miah under Section 438 CrPC. The petitioner faced arrest in a drugs seizure case. The court relied on a prior order and noted the petitioner's status as a joint owner similar to another accused already granted bail.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail on furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties of like amount, subject to conditions under Section 438(2) CrPC.

Abdul Miah Vs State of West Bengal — Narcotics (NDPS) | Calcutta HC (2021)

¶1

11.03.2021 Item No.05 Ct.No.28 Subha Allowed

¶2

C.R.M. 8100 of 2020

¶3

(Via Video Conference)

¶4

In Re : An Application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶5

In the matter of : Abdul Miah. .. Petitioners. Ms. Jeenia Rudra Ms. Saheli Dey. …... For the Petitioner. Mr. Binoy Panda Ms. Puspita Saha ... For the State.

¶6

Apprehending arrest in connection with Gangarampur Police Station Case No. 258 of 2020 dated 0408-2020 under Sections 22(c)/27A/28/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, the present application has been filed.

¶7

Ms. Rudra, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent of the charges and he has been falsely implicated in the instant case on the basis of the statement of the co-accused from whom seizure has been effected.

¶8

¶9

Mr. Panda, learned advocate appearing for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that the petitioner was present when the seizure was effected but fled away from the spot. The further case of the State is that the petitioner is the owner of the house.

¶10

We have perused the materials on record available in the case diary including the order dated 18^th September, 2020, wherein it has been observed:

¶11

“ The case started against the petitioners is on the ground that the petitioners were the joint owners of the building where the seizure was effected. The case is not of the petitioners being in joint possession of the contraband and having fled from the place of seizures upon noticing the raiding party.”

¶12

Having regard to the fact that the petitioner is the joint owner of the property along with one Mustafa @ Mostafa Mia, who has been granted anticipatory bail in CRM 6305 of 2020, we are of the opinion that the petitioner is on the same footing as the other accused who have been extended the privilege of anticipatory bail.

¶13

Accordingly, we allow the application for anticipatory bail and direct that in the event of arrest, the petitioner, namely, Abdul Miah be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) with two sureties of like amount each, one of whom must be local, to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer and

¶14

¶15

subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

¶16

The application for anticipatory bail, being CRM 8100 of 2020 is, thus, disposed of.

¶17

All parties shall act on the server copies of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.

¶18

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

Abdul Miah v. State of West Bengal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Miah 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Haider Sk@Haidar Sekh@Haydar Sekh Vs State of West Bengal

Baitul Sk@Baitulla Sk@Baidul Sk Vs State of West Bengal

Maser Ali@Maser Sekh Vs State of West Bengal

Halima Bibi@Halima Khatun Bibi and Anr. Vs State of West Bengal

Faju Sk @ Sekh Faju Vs State of West Bengal

Savita Devi Mall & Anr. Vs State of West Bengal