Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
(Sourabh Kumar Rai vs The State Of West Bengal) on 20 November, 2018
1 51 20.11.2018 & 64 Court No.34 Sandip Dismissed CRM 8721 of 2018 (Sourabh Kumar Rai - Vs. - The State of West Bengal) with CRM 10065 of 2018 (Rahul Kumar Rai - Vs. - The State of West Bengal) And In the matter of applications for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 01.10.2018 & 13.11.2018 in connection with NDPS Case No. 62 of 2018 arising out of Dum Dum G.R.P.S. Case No. 56/2018 dated 30.06.2018 under Section 22 (c) and added Sections 25 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. Mr. Sandipan Ganguly, Sr. Adv., Mr. Akash Dutta, Mr. Ayan Bhattacharyya, Mr. Srinjay Sengupta, ......For the Petitioners in both the applications. Mr. Saryati Datta ... For the State in both the matters.
The petitioners in the two matters are brothers, though one of them is a director of a company by the name of Octopus Agro Bio Pvt. Ltd and the other one is not.
According to the petitioners, company Octopus has a transfer of technology agreement with a Chinese entity which requires the representatives of the Chinese entity to visit the factory premises of the Indian company in Berhampore, 2 Murshidabad for the purpose of acquainting the Indian company with the manufacturing process for producing activated carbon. The petitioners claim that some time back, the seven Chinese nationals who had come for such purpose were apprehended at the Kolkata Railway Station with about 195 kg of amphetamine tablets.
It appears that in course of subsequent investigation, about 1.8 kg of amphetamine tablets were recovered from Room Nos. 5 and 6 at the Indian company's factory. It is the petitioners' case that such rooms were under the occupation of Chinese nationals and the petitioners and the officials of the Indian company had no truck with the contraband items.
Considering the fact that 1.8 kg of amphetamine tablets were recovered from the premises of a company of which one of the petitioners is a director and the other petitioner is also associated with, possibly as an employee, the custodial interrogation of the petitioners cannot be dispensed with, particularly in the light of the activities of the company and the colossal amount of contraband recovered from the Chinese nationals.
Accordingly, C.R.M. No. 8721 of 2018 and C.R.M. No. 10065 of 2018 are dismissed.
Certified copies of this order be immediately made 3 available to the petitioners subject to the compliance with all requisite formalities.
(Suvra Ghosh, J.) (Sanjib Banerjee, J,)