Dismissed

Pritwish Barman v. State of West Bengal

Calcutta HC10 Mar 2022CRM (A)/58/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an anticipatory bail application, the High Court rejected the prayer. Contraband of commercial quantity was recovered from the petitioner who fled investigation. The Court applied the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act due to the fugitive status. Bail was rejected.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail application was rejected as rigors of Section 37 of NDPS Act applied due to commercial quantity of contraband and flight of petitioner.

Pritwish Barman Vs State of West Bengal — Narcotics (NDPS) | Calcutta HC (2022)

¶1

10.03.2022

¶2

Court No.32 SM,J. BM /Sl. No. 149

¶3

CRM (A) 58 of 2022

¶4

In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure;

¶5

And In Re: Pritwish Barman - Petitioner Mr. Debasish Banerjee Mr. Subrata Saha ... for the Petitioner. Mr. Sanjoy Bardhan Ms. Manisha Sharma … for the State.

¶6

Apprehending arrest in connection with Hili Police Station Case No.32 of 2021 dated 23.02.2021 under Sections 21(c)/22(c)/23(c)/27(A) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, the petitioner has filed the present application, praying for anticipatory bail.

¶7

Learned lawyer appearing for the petitioner submitted that the present petitioner is falsely roped in this case. Investigation was initiated on 23^rd February, 2021 and more than one year lapsed since then. At present, custodial detention of the petitioner is not necessary. Accordingly, he prayed for anticipatory bail.

¶8

Mr. Bardhan, learned lawyer appearing for the State vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that contraband article of commercial quantity was recovered from the custody of the petitioner who was carrying those contraband substances in his motor cycle. He was intercepted when he disclosed his name and then in course of investigation he fled away leaving the motor cycle and contraband articles. Contraband articles, motor cycle and the Adhar card of the petitioner was

¶9

¶10

seized. He is the owner of the motor cycle. Since, this is a case of seizure of contraband article of commercial quantity from the possession of the petitioner, the rigors of Section 37 is applicable and accordingly, he strongly opposes the bail.

¶11

We have heard rival submissions and perused the case diary. From the seizure list it appears that contraband article of commercial quantity has been recovered from his custody. He is also the owner of the motor cycle. Rigors of Section 37 is applicable in this case.

¶12

He is absconding for more than one year causing interruption in the investigation. Since, investigation is still pending and since rigors of Section 37 applies, we are not inclined to allow the petitioner on anticipatory bail and the same is rejected.

¶13

CRM (A) 58 of 2022 stands disposed of.

¶14

(Sugato Majumdar, J.) (Tapabrata Chakraborty, J.)

Pritwish Barman v. State of West Bengal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pritwish Barman 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

Tarun Biswas Vs State of West Bengal

Siddhartha Mondal Vs State of West Bengal

Jharna Halder @ Jhara Halder Vs State of West Bengal

MD Sukru Sk Vs State of West Bengal

Khabir Sk Alias Sk Khabir Vs State of West Bengal

Bijan Sarkar Vs State of West Bengal