Single-judge bench rejected a bail application in a narcotics case involving commercial quantity seized from the petitioner's godown, holding that Section 37 restrictions were not overcome despite lockdown constraints.
Bail application rejected under the view that Section 37 of the NDPS Act restrictions were not overcome.
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.
25.04.2022
Court No.29 Item No.88 (Rejected)
Saswata
CRM 384 of 2021
In Re:- An application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed in connection with Kaliachak Police Station Case No. 395 / 2020 dated 21.05.2020 under Sections 21(c)/29 of the NDPS Act; And
In the matter of : Sentu Sk.
…Petitioner
Mr. Sekhar Kr. Basu, Sr. Adv. Mr. Debangan Bhattacharjee Ms. Swarnali Saha
…For the Petitioner
Mr. Binay Panda Mr. Subham Bhakat
...For the State.
The petitioner prays for bail.
Learned senior advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the raid took place at 22.25 hours. The alleged seizure was not witnessed by any independent witnesses. He submits that the petitioner is the caretaker. The owner of the godown and another person fled away.
Learned advocate for the State submits that the seizure took place between 00.05 hours to 00.45 hours on May 21, 2020. At that material point of time, there were lockdown restrictions. Therefore, considering the lockdown restrictions and the time of the night when the seizure took place, there was no independent witness. He submits that the charges were framed on March 2, 2022 and the next date for recording evidence is May 10, 2022.
Commercial quantity of narcotics was seized from the possession of the petitioner.
Considering the fact that the commercial quantity of narcotics
2
was seized from the possession of the petitioner, we are of the view that the petitioner is unable to overcome the restriction under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
The explanation for the absence of independent witness due to lockdown and the time of the night when the seizure took place cannot be brushed aside. Consequently, we are unable to grant bail to the petitioner.
The application for bail being CRM 384 of 2022 is, thus, rejected.
(Debangsu Basak, J.)
(Bibahas Ranjan De, J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is eligible for bail in a case involving commercial quantity of narcotics under the NDPS Act.
Whether the absence of independent witnesses due to lockdown justifies granting bail.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Sentu Sk.
State
Debangsu Basak
Bibahas Ranjan De
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
