Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sonu Ansari @ Jamshed Ansri vs State Of West Bengal on 7 October, 2021
Author: Debangsu Basak
Bench: Debangsu Basak
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION
Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Debangsu Basak
And
The Hon'ble Justice Ananda Kumar Mukherjee
C.R.M. 5032 of 2021
Sonu Ansari @ Jamshed Ansri.
-Vs-
State of West Bengal
For the Petitioner : Mr. Dev Kumar Sharma, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Ranabir Roychowdhury, Advocate
Mr. Rudradipta Nandi, Advocate
Heard on : 30.09.2021
Judgment on: 07.10.2021
Ananda Kumar Mukherjee, J. :-
1. This application under Section 439 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed by the petitioner
in connection with Jagacha Police Station Case No. 108 of
2018 dated 15.07.2018, under Section 20(b)(ii)(B)(C) of the
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985,
2
now pending before the Learned Judge, Special Court
under the N.D.P.S. Act, at Howrah.
2. Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has
submitted that the petitioner has been levelled falsely
implicated in this case. The allegations that have been
against him are in the abstract and since the petitioner is
under long detention without any progress in the trial, by
this petition he has renewed his prayer for bail for the
fourth time before this Court.
3. The fact of the case as it would appear from the bail
petition is that on the basis of source information 25 kg.
100 grams of ganja was allegedly seized from the
possession of the petitioner while 30 kg. 210 grams was
seized from accused Md. Shahid @ Vicky and 10 kg 200
grams from the accused Md. Chand, amounting to a total
of 65 kg 610 grams of ganja, which is commercial quantity
and that the petitioner used to sell such contraband
substance to customers.
4. Charge has been framed by the Trial Court of
07.01.2019 and during trial, which commenced on
16.01.2019 only three witnesses have been examined in
3
full and one examined in part. It has been submitted by
Mr. Sharma that the earlier application for bail of the
petitioner in CRM 3745 of 2019 was dismissed by this
court on 24.04.2019, the second application being CRM
3472 of 2020 along with CRAN 1777 of 2020 was rejected
as not pressed and the third bail application for the
petitioner being CRM 6617 of 2020 was rejected on
16.09.2020. It has been brought to the notice of this court
that by the order dated 16.09.2020 passed in CRM 6617 of
2020 the Court had directed the Trial Court to commence
the trial either virtually or physically within a fortnight
from the date of communication of the order and to
conclude the trial preferably within six months from the
date of order. It has been submitted that the order was
communicated to the Trial Court on 13.10.2020 but trial
has not been concluded till date. Learned Advocate for the
petitioner has further submitted that the petitioner is in
custody since 16.07.2018 and he should be released on
bail on any condition. In support of his case learned
Advocate for the petitioner has relied upon a decision of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Chitta
4
Biswas @ Subhas vs The State of West Bengal (Criminal
Appeal No. 245 of 2020) and another decision of a co-
ordinate bench of this Court passed in CRM No. 3720 of
2021 in Re Sanjib Roy had urged that in both the cases
the petitioners were granted bail by taking into account
their long detention.
5. Mr. Roy Chowdhury, Learned Advocate for the State
has opposed the prayer for bail and strongly contented
that on consecutive occasion the prayer for bail of the
petitioner has been rejected by co-ordinate benches of this
Court. He has argued that a large haul of ganja/ cannabis
has been seized from the possession of the petitioner as
well as his accomplices and the petitioner has failed to
rebut the presumption raised against him under section
37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances
Act, 1985. He has submitted that due to a prevailing
pandemic situation, some delay occurred in the trail of the
case. Trial is in progress. Delay if any was beyond control
of the prosecution.
6. In support of his submissions learned Advocate for
the State has placed reliance upon two decisions of the
5
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in (2009) 1 SCC
(Cri) 831 (Union of India vs. Rattan Mallik @ Habul)
and 2020 (12) SCC 122 (State of Kerala etc. vs. Rajesh
Etc.), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid emphasis
upon compliance of the mandatory provisions of Section
37 of the N.D.P.S. Act before enlarging a person on bail
who has been charged with such offence.
7. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the
case and the rival submissions advanced by Learned
Advocates for the parties, it appears to us that the only
change in circumstances since rejection of the earlier
application for bail is delay in conclusion of trial and a
longer period of detention of the petitioner. We have taken
notice of the fact that the maximum punishment for the
offence, with which the petitioner has been charged under
Section 20(b)(ii) of the N.D.P.S. Act is ten years of
imprisonment. It appears to us that the petitioner is in
custody since 16.07.2018, which is less than half of the
maximum period of sentence provided for the offence.
Therefore, the petitioner cannot avail the benefit of bail
according to the provisions of Section 436 A of the Code of
6
Criminal Procedure, 1973 on the ground of his detention.
Furthermore, Section 37 (1)(b) of N.D.P.S. Act has an
overriding effect on the provisions of the Code of Criminal
Procedure.
8. On an earlier occasion an order was passed by this
Court in CRM 6617 of 2020 with CRAN 1 of 2020 dated
16.09.2020, wherein the Trial Court was directed to
commence the trial and conclude the same preferably
within six months from the date of order. Learned
Advocate for the petitioner has harped upon the non
conclusion of the trial within the specified period to press
the prayer for bail. The case is pending before the learned
Judge Special Court (for Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985) Howrah, being Trial No. 8 of 2018.
It was fixed on 18.06.2021 for production of accused and
evidence. The copy of order dated 18.06.2021 of the Trial
Court placed before us shows on that date the accused
was not produced from the Correctional Home and none of
the advocates appeared before the court as per resolution
of the local Bar Association. Due to such situation, the
hearing was adjourned and fixed on 09.08.2021 for
7
evidence. It is clear from that order that delay in trial was
caused due to non participation of the members of the Bar
Association which included the learned Advocate for the
petitioner. Therefore, the jurisdictional court cannot be
held responsible for the circumstances which prevented it
from concluding the trial. We are not unmindful of the fact
that in a trial, presence of the witness and the advocates
are necessary but the pandemic has caused deterrence to
such activity by default.
9. In the case of Chitta Biswas @ Subhas relied upon
by the petitioner, a Co-ordinate bench of this court by
order dated 30.07.2019 passed in CRM no. 6787 of 2019
has rejected the prayer for bail of the petitioner due to his
prima facie involvement in alleged joint possession of
commercial quantity of codeine mixture from the petitioner
and the co-accused person in view of the statutory
restrictions under section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act. The
learned advocate led us through the decision in Chitta
Biswas @ Subhas vs State of West Bengal (Criminal
Appeal No. 245 of 2020), which steamed out from the
decision of this court passed in CRM no. 6787 of 2019.
8
The Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering the said
Appeal, granted bail to the petitioner therein without
expressing any opinion on the merits or demerits of the
rival submissions and on the facts and circumstances on
record.
10. In support of the petitioner's case, learned advocate
has also relied upon another decision of the co-ordinate
bench of this court passed in CRM no. 3720 of 2021 dated
02.06.2020 In Re: Sanjib Roy, where in a case under
section 21(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985, the court relying upon the decision
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and Hussainara
Khatoon- Vs.- State of Bihar, Patna, reported in 1980
1 SCC 81 and Abdul Rehman Antulay & Ors. - Vs- R.
S. Nayak & Anr., 1992 1 SCC 225 and the order passed
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Re: Contagion of Covid-
19 Virus in prisons and the judgment delivered in the case
of Shaheen Welfare Association -Vs- Union of India & Ors,
reported in (1996) 2 SCC 616] granted bail to the
petitioner.
9
11. We have considered the facts and circumstance of
the case as well as the decision relied upon by the
petitioner and the State of West Bengal. The jurisdiction of
the court to grant bail in a case involving seizure of
commercial quantity of contraband substance under the
N.D.P.S. Act is circumscribed by the provisions of section
37 of the N.D.P.S. Act which mandates as follows:
"(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of
1974),-
(a) Every offence punishable under this Act
shall be cognizable;
(b) No person accused of an offence punishable
for [offences under section 19 or section 24 or
section 27A and also for offences involving
commercial quantity] shall be released on bail or
on his own bond unless-
(i)the Public Prosecutor has been given an
opportunity to oppose the application for such
release, and
(ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the
application, the court is satisfied that there are
reasonable grounds for believing that he is not
guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to
commit any offence while on bail.
10
(2) The limitations on granting of bail specified
in clause (b) of sub-section (1) are in addition to
the limitation under the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or any other law for
the time being in force on granting of bail".
12. The pre-requisite for granting of bail in a case
involving commercial quantity of contraband substance is
that the court is to be satisfied about the existence of
reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner is not
guilty of any such offence and that he is not likely to
commit any offence while on bail. The prima facie case of
seizure of commercial quantity of ganja from the
possession of the petitioner and co-accused does not
raised any presumption in favour of the petitioner to
dislodge the rigour under section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the Narcotic
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. This legislative
mandate is required to be adhered to in order to effectively
control and curb any nefarious activity of trafficking and
smuggling of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic substances.
13. State of Kerala Etc. Vs. Rajesh Etc (2020)(12) SCC
122, relates to a Appeal prefered before the Supreme
11
Court challenging the discretion exercised by the Learned
Single Judge of the High Court of Kerala in granting post
arrest bail to the accused respondent without noticing the
mandate of section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court on Appeal was pleased to set aside the order passed by the High Court releasing the respondent on bail and observed, "The jurisdiction of the Court to grant bail is circumscribed by the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. It can be granted in case where there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such offence, and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. It is the mandate of the legislature which is required to be followed".
14. In another decision, Union of India vs. Rattan Mallik @ Habul (2009)(1)SCC(Cri) 831 Hon'ble Supreme Court considered an Appeal challenging the order passed by the High Court of judicature at Allahabad which suspended the sentence awarded by the Trial Court in a case under sections 8/27A and 8/29 of the N.D.P.S. Act and granted bail to the convict. In that case the Hon'ble 12 Supreme Court referring to the mandate of section 37 of the N.D.P.S Act directed that the order cannot be sustained without compliance of the same and remitted the matter to the High Court for fresh consideration.
15. While dealing with such prayer for bail we have observed the mandate and parameters laid down in section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act. The test propounded in the decision reported in (2009) 1 SCC (Cri) 831 (Rattan Mallik @ Habul) and in the case of State of Kerala Etc. vs. Rajesh Etc. (2020) (12) SCC (122) observed that the provisions laid down in section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act are mandatory and we are cognizant of the same. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and the nature and gravity of the alleged offence involving seizure of commercial quantity of ganja from the possession of the petitioner and co-accused person, we are unable to persuade ourselves to enlarge the petitioner on bail on the sole ground of the period of detention. We find no substance in the arguments advanced by learned Advocate for the petitioner and his prayer for bail stands rejected. 13
16. With the aforesaid observation the application for bail being CRM No. 5032 of 2021, is disposed of.
17. All parties shall act on the server copies of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.
[ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, J.] I Agree.
[DEBANGSU BASAK, J.]