Abdul Motaleb Ali Vs State of West Bengal — Narcotics (NDPS) | Calcutta HC (2024)

Abdul Motaleb Ali Vs State of West Bengal — Narcotics (NDPS) | Calcutta HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail on merits, given that he owned the truck used to transport the narcotics, had absconded for a considerable period, and sought parity with co-accused present in the truck who were granted bail after about three years' incarceration. +1 more

Court's answer

The petitioner's abscondence contributed to the delay in trial; on account of that conduct he cannot claim parity with the co-accused who are on bail.

Ratio / Principle

Bail is refused to the petitioner both on merits and on the score of delay in trial.

Key takeaways

The application for bail is rejected.ratio¶4
Consequential direction: the trial court is directed to consider the question of framing of charge positively within two months from the next date fixed, and upon framing of charge to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible without granting unnecessary adjournments to either party; parties are to cooperate and communicate a copy of the order to the trial court.ratio¶5

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure — NDPS Act Ss. 21(c)/29 read with Drugs and Cosmetics Act Ss. 18(b)/27 (Malda Police Station Case No.359 of 2020 dated 29.06.2020) — petitioner, owner of the truck used to transport 1000 bottles of phensedyl syrup containing codeine phosphate, in custody about one year and ten months; charges not framed; co-accused present in the truck granted bail after about three years' incarceration — petitioner had absconded for a considerable period and his abscondence contributed to the delay, denying him parity with the bailed co-accused — bail refused both on merits and on the ground of delay in trial — application rejected — trial court directed to consider framing of charge positively within two months from the next date fixed and to conclude trial expeditiously without unnecessary adjournments (Calcutta High Court, C. R. M. (NDPS) 710 of 2024, Gaurang Kanth and Joymalya Bagchi, JJ.).

01.05.2024 Sl. No.16 akd [Rejected]

C. R. M. (NDPS) 710 of 2024

In Re: An application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 28.03.2024 in connection with Malda Police Station Case No.359 of 2020 dated 29.06.2020 under Sections 21/29 of the NDPS Act and Sections 18(b)/27 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and subsequently charge sheet submitted under Sections 21(c)/29 of the NDPS Act read with Sections 18(b)/27 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act.

And

In Re: Abdul Motaleb Ali

… … Petitioner Mr. Souvik Mitter Mr. Jayanta Kumar Das Ms. Madhumanti Das … … for the petitioner Mr. Arani Bhattacharya … … for the State

It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is in custody for about one year and ten months. It is further submitted there is delay in trial. Charges have not been framed. Co-accused have been enlarged on bail. Accordingly, he prays for bail.

Learned Advocate for the State opposes the prayer for bail.

We have considered the materials on record. Petitioner is the owner of the truck which was used to transport narcotics i.e. 1000 bottles of phensedyl syrup containing codeine phosphate . He had absconded for a considerable period of time. Co-accused who were present in the truck were granted bail after incarceration for about three years. Abscondence by petitioner contributed to the delay. In view of his conduct, petitioner cannot claim parity with co-accused who are on bail. In view of the aforesaid, we are not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner either on merits or on the score of delay in trial.

The application for bail is thus rejected.

Signed By : ARUP KUMAR DAS High Court of Calcutta 6 th of May 2024 04:25:53 PM

2

Trial court is directed to consider the issue of framing of charge positively within two months from the next date fixed and upon the charge being framed, to conclude trial as expeditiously as possible without granting unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties. Parties shall cooperate with the trial court in this regard.

Parties shall communicate a copy of this order to the trial court for due compliance.

(Gaurang Kanth, J.)

(Joymalya Bagchi, J.)

Signed By : ARUP KUMAR DAS High Court of Calcutta 6 th of May 2024 04:25:53 PM