PATIRAM POLICE STATION CASE No. 187 of 2022 · Calcutta High Court
Case at a glance
- Bench
- DEBANGSU BASAK, SHABBAR RASHIDI
Provisions considered
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ss. 438, 438(2)
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ss. 21(c), 22(c), 23(c), 27A, 37
Judgment
Mr. Kaushik Choudhury, Ms. Busra Khatun .…for the petitioner Mr. Sudip Kumar .…for the State Petitioner prays for anticipatory bail. Police filed charge-sheet. Claim for parity with other co-accused who was granted anticipatory bail is not being disputed on behalf of the State. Police at this stage are unable to demonstrate any nexus between the petitioner and the person arrested with commercial quantity of narcotics and/or seized commercial quantity of narcotics. In such circumstances, we are of the view that, petitioner is able to overcome the restrictions under Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985. Consequently, we grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, we direct that in the event of arrest the petitioner shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Signed By : CHINMOY CHAKRABORTY High Court of Calcutta 19 th of April 2024 05:33:46 PM 2 Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only), with two sureties of like amount each, to the satisfaction of the arresting officer and also be subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and on condition that the petitioner shall appear on every date before the jurisdictional Court on and from the date fixed for appearance of the accused and in default the jurisdictional Court will pass appropriate order to secure the presence of the petitioner in Court including cancelling the anticipatory bail granted without further reference to this Court. This application for anticipatory bail is, thus, allowed. CRM(A) 1330 of 2024 is disposed of. (Debangsu Basak, J.) (Md. Shabbar Rashidi, J.)
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.