Allowed

Abhijit Das @ Apu v. the State of Assam

Gauhati HC7 Oct 2021Bail Appln./2028/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court granted bail to the accused-petitioner in a Section 24 NDPS Act case after finding the statutory 60-day investigation period expired without a chargesheet. The court held there was no material to establish external dealings involving India, rendering strict restrictions inapplicable.

What did the court decide?

Accused-petitioner granted bail on furnishing a bond of Rs. 20,000 with two sureties, subject to standard conditions of not leaving jurisdiction and not tampering with evidence.

Abhijit Das @ Apu Vs the State of Assam — Narcotics (NDPS) | Gauhati HC (2021)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010128182021

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

Case No. : Bail Appln./2028/2021

¶5

ABHIJIT DAS @ APU S/O LATE AJIT DAS R/O VILL- JYOTI NAGAR P.S. SONAPUR DIST. KAMRUP (M), ASSAM

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM

¶8

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR KUTUB ALI

¶9

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM

¶10

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HITESH KUMAR SARMA

¶11

ORDER

¶12

Date : 07-10-2021

¶13

Heard Mr. S Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Bidyut Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State respondent.

¶14

Page No.# 2/4

¶15

This is an application, filed under Section 439 of the Cr.PC. seeking bail of the accused-petitioner, namely, Abhijit Das @ Apu, in connection with Sonapur Police Station Case No. 422/2021 , registered under Sections 21(b)/24 of the NDPS Act.

¶16

Perused the case diary produced before this Court.

¶17

The case has been registered, as indicated above, under Sections 21(b)/24 of the NDPS Act. As per record, the accused-petitioner was arrested on 30.06.2021 and as such, he has been in custody for 98 (ninety eight) days, as on date.

¶18

Mr. Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the statutory period prescribed for completion of investigation in a case of the instant nature is 60 (sixty) days. But, investigation has neither been completed nor chargesheet has not been laid in the instant case. However, he has submitted that in the FIR itself, there is no indication/statement to the effect that the offence punishable under Section 24 of the NDPS Act is attracted and there is absence of any allegation of external dealings of drugs, involved in this case, by the petitioner.

¶19

To verify the correctness of such submission, I have visited the case diary thoroughly. There is absolutely no material in any of the statements available in the case diary, including the statement of the accused-petitioner, that there is any ingredient to attract the provisions of Section 24 of the NDPS Act.

¶20

There is absolutely no material collected to indicate that the accusedpetitioner had obtained the psychotropic substances from outside India and supplied to any person outside India. In the absence of any such material, in the considered view of this Court, the restrictions of Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act appears to have no application in the instant case.

¶21

Page No.# 3/4

¶22

On the basis of the materials in the case diary, this Court records its satisfaction that the materials in the case diary do not justify an offence punishable under Section 24 of the NDPS Act. So far the other offence involved in this case is concerned, the statutory period prescribed for completion of investigation is 60 (sixty) days. As indicated above, the accused-petitioner has been in custody for 98 (ninety eight) days. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that further custodial detention of the accused-petitioner is not essential and accordingly, he is granted bail.

¶23

Accordingly, the accused-petitioner, named above, shall be released on bail in connection with the abovementioned case on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 20,000/- with two suitable sureties of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned jurisdictional Special Judge, under the NDPS Act.

¶24

The direction for bail is further subject to the conditions that the accused-petitioner:

¶25

(a) shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of the learned jurisdictional Special Judge, under the NDPS Act, without prior written permission from him;

¶26

(b) shall not hamper with the investigation, or tamper with the evidence of the case; and

¶27

(c) shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer

¶28

It is made clear that any observation made in this order is limited to this

¶29

Page No.# 4/4

¶30

bail application only and is tentative.

¶31

The petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶32

Return the case diary.

¶33

JUDGE

¶34

Comparing Assistant

Abhijit Das @ Apu v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abhijit Das @ Apu v. the State of Assam

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

Jaidul Haque Vs the State of Assam

Imran Ali @ Laden Vs the State of Assam

Md. Abdus Subur Ahmed Vs the State of Assam

Sankar Nath Vs the State of Assam

Jahirul Sikdar Vs the State of Assam

Shahanur Islam Vs the State of Assam