Faiyaz Khan v. Union Territory Of Andaman And Nicobar Island

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** CRM(A)/2/2025 Faiyaz Khan Vs.

Union Territory of Andaman and Nicobar Islands Mr. Mohammed Tabraiz Mr. Mohammed Shahruk .... for the appellant Mr. Sumit Kumar Karmakar ... for the respondent June 18, 2025 [SR] Item No.5 Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits as follows. An intermediate quantity of "ganja" was allegedly recovered from the co-accused. The petitioner has been made an accused merely on the basis of the statement of a co-accused, which is not admissible in evidence. There is no money trail between the accused and the petitioner. Charge sheet has been filed. The alleged transaction for the sum of Rs. 27,000/- was made after registration of the FIR. The petitioner happens to be a trader who often visits Myanmar and Thailand. There is no question of fleeing to Thailand. In fact at the time when the police came looking for him, the petitoner was in India.

Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State strongly opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and submits as follows. Apart from the statement of co-accused, there is a statement of an agent of the petitioner, who clearly stated about money being sent to the prime accused by the petitioner through him. He was also asked to enquire by the petitioner as to whether the

prime accused has already been arrested with ganja. There are also call detail records about phone calls made soon before the incident between the petitioner and the prime accused. Considering the seriousness of the allegations and the materials available in the case diary including the call details record and the statements of witnesses, I do not consider this to be a fit case for granting anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the CRM(A)/2/2025 is dismissed.

Urgent certified copy of this order be supplied to the learned counsels for the parties upon compliance of usual formalities.

( Jay Sengupta, J. )