The single judge court rejected an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC. Finding that the petitioner could not clear the trap of Section 37 of the NDPS Act due to commercial quantity allegations and evidence of nexus via call recording, the application was dismissed.
Prayer for anticipatory bail rejected; Application dismissed.
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.
24.04.2023
Serial no. 01 [Dd] (Anticipatory bail) (Rejected)
CRM (A) 1578 of 2023
In re : An Application for Anticipatory Bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with Jhalda Police Station Case No. 49 of 2023 dated 19.03.2023 under Sections 27 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940; corresponding to G.R. case no. 480 of 2023.
-And-
In the matter of : Sadhan Chandra
Mr. Soumik Ganguly,
Mr. Dilip Kr. Sadhu, Advocates … … For the Petitioner
Mr. Sanjoy Bardhan,
Mr. Chittaranjan Ghosh, Advocates … …For the State
Report as called for by the order dated April 17, 2023 filed in Court be taken on record.
Report speaks of call details recording between the petitioner and the person arrested with the commercial quantity of narcotics.
Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner refers to an order passed by the Sessions Court in respect of the coaccused.
It appears from such order, the police case was then registered under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act.
Provisions of the NDPS Act, 1985 were subsequently added.
Prima facie it appears that the materials seized are narcotics of commercial quantity.
Police apparently are in a position to demonstrate the nexus between the petitioner and the person arrested with the
2
commercial quantity of narcotics through the call details recording.
In such circumstances, we are of the view that the petitioner is unable to overcome the restrictions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985.
Consequently, we are unable to grant anticipatory bail to
the petitioner.
Prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is rejected . CRM (A) 1578 of 2023 is dismissed .
(Debangsu Basak, J.)
(Rai Chattopadhyay, J.)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner can overcome the restrictions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act given commercial quantity allegations.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Sadhan Chandra
The State
Debangsu Basak
Rai Chattopadhyay
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
