OF TRIPURA AGARTALA AB No. 08 of 2022 · Tripura High Court

Mr. A.T. Paul, Adv. Mr. R. Datta, P.P. Mr. S. Ghosh, Addl. P.P. HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. CHATTOPADHYAY Order 09/02/2022 [1] By means of filing this petition under section 438, Cr.P.C, Petitioner who is an FIR named accused in Airport PS case No. 2021 ARP 073 registered under sections 20(b)(ii)(C) and 25, NDPS Act, 1985 has approached this court for his release on pre arrest bail. [2] Heard Mr. A.T. Paul , counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R. Datta, learned P.P appearing along with Mr. S. Ghosh, learned Addl. P.P. for the State respondent. [3] Background facts of the case are that when the petitioner was carrying the contraband in his vehicle on 27.09.2021, the vehicle was spotted by 120 BN, BSF pursuant to a secret information. They chased the vehicle. The petitioner who is the driver and owner of the vehicle fled away leaving his vehicle. The vehicle was then brought to the police station and 64 Kg dried ganja was recovered and seized from inside the vehicle. [4] Based on the said FIR, case was registered and the investigation was taken up. [5] Appearing for the petitioner, Mr.

A.T. Paul, learned counsel submits that there is no substantial compliance of the mandatory provisions of sections 41 and 42 of the NDPS Act. Moreover, no inventory of the seized contraband was prepared in terms of the provisions of the Act. Counsel submits that for non compliance of the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act, the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail. This apart, father of the accused is 82 years old and the petitioner is also having his wife and minor daughter at home. Therefore, his arrest and detention will ruin his family. Counsel, therefore, urges for granting pre arrest bail to the petitioner on any ground whatsoever. [6] Mr. R. Datta, learned P.P on the other submits that the case involves contravention of commercial quantity and therefore section 37 of the NDPS Act applies to the case. Counsel contends that unless the twin conditions provided under section 37(1)(ii), NDPS Act are satisfied, the accused cannot be released on bail in a case under the NDPS Act.

Learned P.P also submits that in a case where commercial quantity of contraband has been seized and recovered from the vehicle owned by the petitioner and his nexus with the crime has been established, he is not entitled to anticipatory bail under any circumstances because his release on anticipatory bail will obstruct a free and fair investigation of the case. Learned P.P, therefore, urges for cancellation of his petition. [7] Considered the submissions of learned of the parties. Perused the entire record including the updated case dairy. [8] There is no denial of the fact that the offending vehicle is owned by the petitioner and the petitioner himself drives his vehicle. The papers placed before the court demonstrate that commercial quantity of contraband was recovered and seized from inside his vehicle. No explanation has been offered by him as how the contraband came to be loaded in his vehicle.

Therefore, there is strong prima facie case against the petitioner. [9] In view of the restrictions provided under section 37, NDPS Act and the facts and circumstances made available before the court, this court is of the view that it would not be appropriate to enlarge the petitioner on pre arrest at this stage. Accordingly, his bail petition stands rejected and the case is disposed of. Return the case diary. JUDGE Sabyasachi G