BHATAR P.S. CASE No. 31 of 2024 · Calcutta High Court
Case at a glance
- Bench
- ARIJIT BANERJEE, APURBA SINHA RAY
Provisions considered
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ss. 21C, 29
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s. 439
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 s. 483
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 34, 201
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. It further appears that there is no dispute that this petitioner is the owner of one of the trucks from which recovery was made. The petitioner is unable to explain as to how his vehicle was carrying commercial quantity of contraband items. It is…
Judgment
Mr. Sujan Chatterjee, Mr. Rohan Bavishi ……for the Petitioner. Ms. Anasuya Sinha, ld. APP Md. Kutubuddin ……for the State. Dictated by Arijit Banerjee, J.
The petitioner says that he has no connection with the seizure of the contraband items. He is merely the owner of one of the trucks from which commercial quantity of contraband items was seized. He was not present at the spot of seizure. The driver of the concerned truck has been granted bail by this Court. Another accused person by the name of Babrabahu Ghosh has also been enlarged on bail by a Coordinate Bench. He is in custody for about one year. He prays for bail.
Opposing the prayer, learned State Advocate draws our attention to the material in the case diary. It appears that Babrabahu Ghosh is the owner of an abandoned vehicle from which there was no recovery of contraband Signed By : APURBA BANDYOPADHYAY High Court of Calcutta 17 th of December 2024 10:44:08 AM 2 items. Therefore, this petitioner does not stand on the same footing as Babrabahu Ghosh.
It further appears that there is no dispute that this petitioner is the owner of one of the trucks from which recovery was made. The petitioner is unable to explain as to how his vehicle was carrying commercial quantity of contraband items. It is possible that the driver of the truck was not aware of the same being used for transport of contraband items and, therefore, he was granted bail. That would not per se entitle this petitioner to the privilege of bail. In view of the aforesaid, we are not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail, at this stage. The prayer for bail is rejected. CRM (NDPS) 1728 of 2024 is dismissed. However, considering that the petitioner is in custody for close to one year, we request the learned Trial Court to expedite the proceedings and conclude the same on an early date. The parties shall communicate this order to the learned Trial Court. All parties shall act in terms of server copy of the order downloaded from the official website of this Court.
(Arijit Banerjee, J.) (Apurba Sinha Ray, J.) 3
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.