Allowed

Saroj Sahani@Sanoj v. the State of West Bengal

Calcutta HC13 Sept 2023CRM(NDPS)/604/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Calcutta High Court granted bail to the petitioner, who had been in custody for 188 days, noting that a three-month gap between apprehension and FSL report submission tainted the presumption under Section 37 of the NDPS Act regarding the commercial quantity seized.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted on bond of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties, condition of attendance and non-interference imposed.

Saroj Sahani@Sanoj Vs the State of West Bengal — Narcotics (NDPS) | Calcutta HC (2023)

¶1

AD-16 Ct No.01 Jalpaiguri 13.09.2023 SP

¶2

Calcutta High Court In The Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri Appellate Side

¶3

CRM (NDPS) 604 of 2023

¶4

In Re: - An application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 14.08.2023 in connection with Pradhannagar Police Station Case No. 165 of 2023 dated 10.03.2023 under Section 21(c) & 22(c) and 27A of the (NDPS Act, 1985).

¶5

And

¶6

In the matter of: SAROJ SAHANI@SANOJ

¶7

…. petitioner

¶8

Mr. Somraj Paul Mr. Chhoton Barman

¶9

… for the petitioner

¶10

Mr. Abhijit Sarkar Mr. Chattu Roy

¶11

… for the State

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the parties. The State vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and it is submitted that commercial quantity of banned substance was seized from the petitioner.

¶13

Upon hearing learned counsel, we find that the petitioner is already in custody for 188 days. Further, the samples were apparently sent for FSL report on June 4, 2023 whereas the petitioner was apprehended on March 10, 2023, leaving a gap of about three months in between, which taints the presumption under Section 37 in the present case.

¶14

¶15

Accordingly, CRM (NDPS) 604 of 2023 is allowed, thereby granting bail to the petitioner on condition that the petitioner shall furnish a bond of Rs.10,000/-, with two sureties of like amount each, one of whom must be local, to the satisfaction of the Special Judge (NDPS Act) Siliguri.

¶16

The petitioner shall attend each and every day of trial and shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court throughout the period of trial.

¶17

Moreover, the petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case so as to dissuade such person from disclosing such facts to any police officer or the court and/or tamper with the evidence in any manner whatsoever.

¶18

(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)

¶19

(Uday Kumar, J.)

Saroj Sahani@Sanoj v. the State of West Bengal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saroj Sahani@Sanoj v. the 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

Dulu Barman Vs the State of West Bengal

Sahabuddin Ali @ Babu Vs the State of West Bengal

Karan Das Vs State of West Bengal

Rahul Sarkar Vs the State of West Bengal

Monoj Barman @ Monaj Barman and Anr. Vs the State of West Bengal

MD Alam Vs the State of West Bengal and Anr.