Santosh Mahato And ANR. v. The State Of West Bengal

JPD-69 Ct No.01 01.08.2024 S.Pal Calcutta High Court In The Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri Appellate Side CRM (NDPS) 381 of 2024 In Re: - An application for bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 correspondence under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 in connection with Bhaktinagar Police Station Case No.131 of 2024 dated 16.02.2024 under Sections 21(c)/22(c)/25/29 of the NDPS Act, 1985.

And In the matter of: Santosh Mahato and Another

...Petitioners

Mr. Partha Pratim Sarkar Mr. Debajit Kundu ...for the petitioners Mr. Abhijit Sarkar Mr. Kallol Acharjee Ms. Namrata Das ... for the State

1. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that as per the allegation of the State, commercial quantity of contraband articles were recovered from the petitioners. Even in terms of the written complaint, the said articles were recovered from the floor of a scooty. However, the petitioners were not riding

the scooty, nor were sitting on the same. That apart, the ownership of the scooty has not been verified by the investigating agency and, as such, there is nothing till date to connect the petitioners with the alleged offence.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that till date no FSL report has been furnished, which tantamounts to contravention of Rule 14 of the NDPS Rules, 2022.

3. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail and argues that it is still a premature stage for observing that there was no connection between the petitioners and the scooty, since the ownership of the scooty can very well be verified even hereafter.

4. It is submitted that the outer statutory limit of filing chargesheet is yet to expire and, as such, if the petitioners are granted bail at the present moment, the mandatory provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act would be violated.

5. Upon a careful consideration of the materials on record, we find that although there might be some ambiguity as to whether the petitioners were sitting on the scooty or standing in front of the same, it would be premature at this stage to come to any conclusive finding in that regard, particularly since the statutory time limit for filing of charge-sheet is not yet over. As such, it is even premature to observe whether the bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act can be overridden in this particular case.

6. In such view of the matter, we are not inclined to grant bail at this stage.

7. Accordingly, CRM (NDPS) 381 of 2024 is dismissed. (Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.) (Prasenjit Biswas, J.)