Bail application rejected. Court held co-accused's electronic record disproving their presence did not invalidate recovery from petitioner's vehicle. Independent witnesses corroborated seizure, so case stands corroborated against petitioner.
Bail application rejected. Interim bail cancelled. Petitioner to be arrested forthwith.
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.
15.05.2023. 08. Ct.No.28 As (Rejected).
C.R.M. (NDPS) 683 of 2023
In Re:- An application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with NDPS Case No.14 of 2022 arising out of Raniganj P. S. Case No.293 of 2022 dated 20.05.2022 under Sections 20(b)(ii)c/25/29 of the NDPS Act.
In the matter of : Bablu Chourasia @ Bablu Chowrasia.
… Petitioner.
Mr. Debapriya Samanta, Mr. Samrat Ghosh. …for the Petitioner. Mr. Rudradipta Nandy, ld. A.P.P., Mr. Ranadeb Sengupta.
Petitioner submits allegation of recovery of narcotics was from a vehicle occupied by five individuals including one Montu Prasad is potently false. Co-accused Montu Prasad was arrested from his residence on 19.5.2022 at 12.40.08 hours. His presence at the place of occurrence is impossible. This goes to the root of the prosecution case. CCTV footage at the office of the Detective Department, Asansol Durgapur Commissionerate would show petitioner was in the said office at the time of recovery. He sought production of the said CCTV footage.
In view of the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and the said co-accused viz., Montu Prasad, they were released on interim bail. CCTV footages were called for. Report is placed on record. From the report it appears that the CCTV was installed at the D. D. Office on 18.8.2022. Hence, no
2
recording with regard to incident on 19.5.2022 could be produced. However, CCTV footage from the residence of Mantu Prasad and pen drive containing copies of the electronic records were produced by Montu Prasad and analysis reports were filed.
We have given anxious consideration of the submissions of the rival parties in the light of the aforesaid reports. We note that electronic records stored in the pen drive submitted on behalf of the co-accused Montu Prasad prima facie show that police had taken him into custody at this residence on 19.5.2022 at 12.40.08 hours. In view of the aforesaid circumstance, we enlarged him on bail in CRM (NDPS) 1303 of 2022. However, no electronic record to improbabilise the presence of the petitioner or the vehicle owned by him at the spot has been adduced. It is streneously argued that the recovery is improbabilised through the electronic record submitted on behalf of co-accused viz., Montu Prasad. Even if one prima facie accepts the said electronic record, improbalises the presenceof Montu Prasad at the spot, it has no impact on the prosecution case so far as the petitioner is concerned. On the other hand, statements of official witnesses with regard to recovery are corroborated by independent witnesses. Seizure list and other contemporaneous documents show recovery from the vehicle owned by the petitioner at the spot. These materials on record do not get sullied by the electronic record produced by co-accused viz., Montu Prasad vis-a-vis the role of the petitioner in the crime. It is trite law ‘falsus in uno’ is not
3
‘falsus in omnibus’ and improbability of the prosecution case vis-à-vis once accused would not affect its credibility vis-à-vis another.
Under such circumstances, we are constrained to hold materials collected during investigation do not stand improbabilised vis-a-vis the petitioner and he may not be enlarged on bail on parity with co-accused viz., Montu Prasad.
Under such circumstances, we cancel the interim bail granted to the petitioner and reject his bail application.
Petitioner shall be forthwith apprehended in accordance with law.
(Ajay Kumar Gupta,J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether electronic records showing the co-accused was elsewhere at the time of recovery invalidate the petitioner's recovery and warrant bail.
Whether prosecution case against petitioner is improbabilised given independent corroboration of recovery from petitioner's vehicle despite co-accused absolving presence at spot.
Whether petitioner should be enlarged on bail on parity with co-accused who secured bail via same logic.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Bablu Chourasia
Ajay Kumar Gupta
Joymalya Bagchi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
