Allowed

Alimur Shaikh v. State of West Bengal

Calcutta HC1 May 2024CRM (NDPS)/605/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Calcutta High Court granted bail to the petitioner under Section 439 CrPC in an NDPS case involving phensedyl syrup. The court held that inordinate delay and the prosecution's indifference in not examining witnesses after over a year justified bail, overriding Section 37 NDPS Act restrictions.

What did the court decide?

Release of petitioner on bail with bond of Rs.10,000 and two sureties of like amount, subject to standard conditions.

Alimur Shaikh Vs State of West Bengal — Narcotics (NDPS) | Calcutta HC (2024)

¶1

01.05.2024 Sl. No.14 akd [ALLOWED]

¶2

C. R. M. (NDPS) 605 of 2024

¶3

In Re: An application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 27.03.2024 in connection with Gaighata Police Station Case No.1141 of 2022 dated 07.12.2022 under Section 21(c) of the NDPS Act.

¶4

And

¶5

In Re: Alimur Shaikh

¶6

… … Petitioner

¶7

Mr. Kamalesh Chandra Saha Ms. Payel Mitra

¶8

… … for the petitioner

¶9

Mr. Shekhar Barman

¶10

… … for the State

¶11

It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is in custody for about one year and three months. It is further submitted there is slow progress in trial. Witnesses have not turned up during trial. Accordingly, he prays for bail.

¶12

Learned Advocate for the State opposes the prayer for bail.

¶13

We have considered the materials on record. Though narcotics i.e. 100 bottles of phensedyl syrup were recovered from the petitioner, he is in custody for about one year and three months. No witnesses have been examined till date. Even during the last schedule i.e. on 25^th and 26^th April, 2024 witnesses did not turn up. This shows indifferent attitude on behalf of the prosecution to lead evidence. Under such circumstances, we are constrained to hold petitioner has been able to make out a case of breach of his fundamental right to speedy trial and he is entitled to bail on this score. Bail prayer on the ground of inordinate delay in trial is not fettered by restrictions under

¶14

Signed By : ARUP KUMAR DAS High Court of Calcutta 2 nd of May 2024 06:17:25 PM

¶15

¶16

Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Reference in this regard may be made

¶17

to Rabi Prakash vs. The State of Odisha¹ .

¶18

Therefore, the accused/petitioner, namely Alimur Shaikh, be released on bail upon furnishing bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only), with two sureties of like amount each, one of whom must be local, to the satisfaction of the learned Judge, Special Court under the NDPS Act-cum-Additional Sessions Judge, 6^th Court, Barasat, North 24-Parganas subject to condition that the said petitioner shall appear before the trial court on every date of hearing until further orders and shall not intimidate witnesses or tamper with evidence in any manner whatsoever or commit similar offences in future.

¶19

In the event he fails to appear before the trial court without any justifiable cause, the trial court shall be at liberty to cancel his bail automatically without reference to this court.

¶20

The application for bail, thus, stands allowed.

¶21

(Gaurang Kanth, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)

¶22

1 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1109

¶23

Signed By : ARUP KUMAR DAS High Court of Calcutta 2 nd of May 2024 06:17:25 PM

Alimur Shaikh v. State of West Bengal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Alimur Shaikh v. 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ijaj Ahamad @ Ahmed Vs State of West Bengal

Salauddin Shaikh Vs State of West Bengal

Md. Sameer Ansari @ Samir Ansari Vs the State of West Bengal and Anr.

Abdul Motaleb Ali Vs State of West Bengal

Pintu Acharjee Vs State of West Bengal and Anr.

Paltu Sk. Vs State of West Bengal