The Calcutta High Court at Jalpaiguri rejected a bail application filed under Section 439 CrPC in an NDPS case. The court held that witness identity disputes destined for trial do not justify bail, especially where commercial quantities were seized.
Bail application rejected; prayer for release dismissed; no relief granted.
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.
01.03.2022
COURT : 01 ITEM : 04 MATTER : 439 STATUS : REJECTED TRANSCRIBER : nandy
CIRCUIT BENCH OF CALCUTTA HIGH COURT AT JALPAIGURI
CRM (NDPS) 9 of 2022
In Re:- An application for bail under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on January 10, 2022 in connection with Maynaguri Police Station Case No. 421 of 2021 dated 23.08.2021 under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. (NDPS Case No. 62 of 2021) And
In the matter of: Sudeb Sarkar & Ors.
...Petitioners
Mr. Sudip Guha, Advocate
...for the Petitioners
Mr. Nilay Chakraborty, Advocate Mr. Tapan Bhattacharjee, Advocate
...for the State
The petitioners are seeking bail in connection with Maynaguri Police Station Case No. 421 of 2021 dated 23.08.2021 under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.
The petitioners submit that the name of one of the witnesses at the time of seizure does not find place in the chargesheet but the name of some other witness has been included therein and, therefore, the petitioners should be released on bail.
The State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the person who was a witness at the time of seizure is one and the same and, therefore, his name has been disclosed in the chargesheet.
Our attention is, however, drawn to the statement of the said witness recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The question relating to the identity of a person is
essentially a matter of trial and, therefore, we do not find that the same can be projected at this stage. Since commercial quantity of contraband was allegedly recovered from the joint possession of the petitioners, we do not find any justification for taking exception to Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
Accordingly, the prayer for bail is rejected .
The application being CRM (NDPS) 9 of 2022 is dismissed .
However, we request the learned Judge of the Special Court under NDPS Act, to expedite the trial of the case.
(Harish Tandon, J)
(Rabindranath Samanta, J)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the discrepancy in witness names between the seizure report and chargesheet justifies bail in an NDPS case involving commercial quantity.
Whether the identity dispute raised by the petitioner can be projected at the bail stage under Section 161 CrPC.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Sudeb Sarkar & Ors.
State
Harish Tandon
Rabindranath Samanta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
