NDPS CASE No. 01 of 2023 · Calcutta High Court
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 01 Jan 2023
- Bench
- GAURANG KANTH, JOYMALYA BAGCHI
Provisions considered
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ss. 21(C), 25, 29, 37
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s. 439
Key paragraphs
Judgment
Mr. Sovan Dasgupta. ...for the Petitioner. Mr. Angshuman Chakraborty. …for the State.
Petitioner contends he is in no way connected with the transportation of narcotics. Co-accused is on bail. He is in custody for more than a year. Accordingly, he prays for bail.
Learned Advocate for State opposes the bail prayer. He contends narcotics was recovered from the possession of the petitioner. Date has been fixed for consideration of charge.
We have considered the materials on record. 100 bottles of phensedyl cough syrup were recovered from a Mahindra Pickup van. Petitioner was driver of the said vehicle. No recovery was made from possession of co-accused who is on bail. Hence, petitioner can not claim parity with the said co-accused. Date has been fixed for consideration of charge.
Under such circumstances and in view of statutory restrictions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, we are not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. 2
Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected.
Trial Court is directed to consider the issue for framing of charge at the earliest and in the event charge is framed to take the proceeding to its logical conclusion. (Gaurang Kanth, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — ss. 21(C), 25, 29, 37; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 439.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Calcutta High Court, on 01 Jan 2023. The bench was GAURANG KANTH, JOYMALYA BAGCHI.
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.