This is a bail application regarding an NDPS case involving codeine phosphate. The court, citing statutory restrictions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act due to the recovered quantity, rejected the bail plea.
Bail prayer of the petitioner is rejected.
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.
17.07.2023. 15. Ct.No.28 as (Rejected)
C.R.M. (NDPS) 708 of 2023
In Re:- An application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection NDPS Case No.30 of 2022 arising out of Dhantala P.S. Case No.303 of 2022 dated 13.05.2022 under Sections 21(c) of the NDPS Act.
In the matter of : Saheb Sajjal.
… Petitioner. Mr. Kushal Kr. Mukherjee, Ms. Eshita Aich. …for the Petitioner. Mr. Saryati Datta. ...for the State.
Heard the learned Advocates for the parties.
Chemical examiner’s report is placed on record. Report shows presence of codeine phosphate in the sample. Statements of witnesses and contemporaneous document i.e. seizure memorandum show recovery of 20 bottles of phensedyl syrup containing codeine phosphate from the petitioner.
Under such circumstances and in view of statutory restrictions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, we are not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.
Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected.
(Ajay Kumar Gupta, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner under the NDPS Act considering the statutory restrictions.
Whether the chemical examiner's report and recovered quantity justify rejection of bail under Section 37 NDPS Act.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Saheb Sajjal
The State
Ajay Kumar Gupta
Joymalya Bagchi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
