Dismissed

Minoti Das v. the State of Ap

Gauhati HC2 Aug 2022BA/60/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single-judge order dismissing an application for bail under Section 439 CrPC. The applicant sought release for her husband, accused of heroin possession under the NDPS Act, arguing the quantity was non-commercial. The Court denied bail, citing the accused’s prior arrest under the same Act and the stringent bail conditions of Section 37 NDPS, finding him unfit for release.

What did the court decide?

Bail application dismissed; the accused remains in custody.

Minoti Das Vs the State of Ap — Narcotics (NDPS) | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/5

¶2

GAHC040007422022

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : BA 60/2022

¶5

1:Minoti Das M/o Shri Suraj Das, Resident of Village Rajgar, Harmoty, Police Station Laluk, Dist. Lakhimpur, Assam.

¶6

VERSUS 1:THE STATE OF AP Represented by the Public Prosecutor, Arunachal Pradesh.

¶7

Advocate for the Petitioner : Gautam Phukan

¶8

Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP

¶9

Page No.# 2/5

¶10

BEFORE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN

¶11

ORDER

¶12

02.08.2022

¶13

Heard Mr. G. Phukan, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. T. Ete, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent.

¶14

This application, under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is preferred by applicant- Smti Minoti Das, for grant of bail to accused, namely, Suraj Das , who has been languishing in jail hazot in connection with Banderdewa P.S. Case No. 12/2022, under Sections 22(b)/27(A)/29 of the NDPS Act , since 23.03.2022.

¶15

Be it noted here that aforesaid Banderdewa P.S. Case No. 12/2022, under Sections 22(b)/27(A)/29 of the NDPS Act, has been registered on the basis of one F.I.R., lodged by one DySP Dekio Gumja on 23.03.2022, to the effect that on the basis of information received on that day, at about 2100 hours, he along with a team left for Banderdewa and apprehended one person having heroin with èis scooty, bearing Registration No. AS 22F 7360, by laying trap at Dikrong Hotel, and after conducting search in tool box of his scooty, 61 vials of suspected narcotics (heroin) weighing 80.2 grams in total were recovered and seized.

¶16

Page No.# 3/5

¶17

Mr. G. Phukan, learned counsel for the applicant, submits that the accused is behind the bar for last 127 days and that the quantity of narcotic drugs recovered from the possession of the present accused is 80.2 grams and the same is not commercial quantity and that he is not dealing with financing illicit traffic of drugs as alleged and also not a harbouring offenders and therefore, it is contended to allow the petition.

¶18

On the other hand, Mr. T. Ete, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, producing the Case Diary before this Court, submits that after investigation, the I.O. laid Charge-Sheet against the accused under Sections 22(b)/27(A)/29 of the NDPS Act and that the accused has to satisfy the condition laid down in Section 37 of the NDPS Act that he is not guilty of such offences and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. Mr. Ete further submits that the accused was previously arrested in connection with Naharlagun P.S. Case No. 73/2021, under Section 21(b) of the NDPS Act and therefore, Mr. Ete, learned Additional Public Prosecutor contended to dismiss the petition as the accused failed to satisfy the conditions laid down in Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

¶19

Mr. Ete also referred one case law- State of M.P. Vs. Kajad [(2001) 7 SCC 673] . It is to be noted here that in the aforesaid case, it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that “the purpose for which the Act was enacted and the menace of drug trafficking which intends to curtail is evident from its scheme. A perusal of Section 37 of the Act leaves no doubt in the mind of the court that a person accused of an offence, punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more, shall generally be not released on bail. Negation of bail is the rule and its grant and exception under sub clause (ii) of

¶20

Page No.# 4/5

¶21

clause (b) of Section 37(1). For granting the bail the court must, on the basis of the record produced before it, be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offences with which he is charged and further that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. It has further to be noticed that the conditions for granting the bail, specified in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 37 are in addition to the limitations provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure or any other law for the time being in force regulating the grant of bail. Liberal approach in the matter of bail under the Act is uncalled for.”

¶22

Having heard the submissions of learned Advocates of both sides, I have carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record and also perused the LCR received from the learned Court below and I find sufficient force in the submission of Mr. Ete, learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

¶23

It appears that 80.2 grams of heroin was recovered from the possession of accused and the case has been registered under Sections 22(b)/27(A)/29 of the NDPS Act and as such, the accused has to satisfy the 2 (two) conditions laid down in Section 37 of the NDPS Act. But on perusal of the petition and the documents placed on record and also on perusal of the Case Diary produced before this Court, it cannot be said that the accused is not guilty of the offence with which he has been charged and also it cannot be said that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. It further appears from the documents placed on record, more particularly, from the Status Report of the I.O. that he was also previously arrested in connection with Naharlagun P.S. Case No. 73/2021, under Section 21(b) of the NDPS Act. Further, it appears that the I.O.

¶24

Page No.# 5/5

¶25

has completed investigation and laid Charge-Sheet against him and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the Charge-Sheet has been submitted within the stipulated period.

¶26

In view of above, this Court is of the view that this is not a fit case where the privilege of bail can be extended to the accused and accordingly, the same stands dismissed.

¶27

The Case Diary be sent back.

¶28

JUDGE

¶29

Comparing Assistant

Minoti Das v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Minoti Das v. the State of Ap

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

Shri Ranjan Kumar Singh Vs Shri Ego Riba

Rinku Moni Gogoi Vs the State of Ap

Nongki Perme Vs the State of Ap

Techi Kak Vs Bijay Biswas @ Dengu and 2 Ors.

Dana Pertin Vs Baity Jamoh and 4 Ors.

Munu Sharma Vs the State of Ap