Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)

In Re : Shahid Hussain vs Sankar Biswas on 1 September, 2015

Author: Nishita Mhatre

Bench: Nishita Mhatre

1 1, 2015.

C.R.M. 3727 of 2015 In re: An application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 21.04. 2015 in connection with Air Customs Superintendent, Air Intelligence Unit, Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose International Airport Kolkata dated 21.12.2013 under Sections 21 and 23 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985.

                                  And
           In re :         Shahid Hussain.
                                           Petitioner.
                              -versus-

Sankar Biswas, Air Customs Superintendent, Air Intelligence Unit, Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose International Airport, Kolkata.

Opposite party.

Mr. Habibur Rahaman, Ms. Karabi Roy, Mr. Kapil Guha For the Petitioner.

Mr. S.B. Saraf, Mr. K.K. Maiti For the Opposite Party.

This is an application for bail filed by the Petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with Air Customs Superintendent, Air Intelligence Unit, Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose International Airport Kolkata.

Learned Advocate for the Petitioner submits that the provisions of inventory under Section 52A of the NDPS Act has not been complied with in this case and hence the Petitioner should be granted bail in the case. He has also cited a decision passed by this Bench earlier. On the contrary, learned Advocate appearing for the Customs submits that complaint has already been submitted in 2 the Court and trial would be commenced soon in the trial Court and hence this is not a fit case to grant bail at this stage of the case.

About two kilograms of charas which is a commercial quantity has been recovered from the accused/petitioner and trial is likely to commence soon. The judgment cited by the learned Advocate was a judgment passed in Appeal after hearing both the parties at length on the point of merit and on evidence as well. So the principle laid down in that case cannot be applied here since we are now hearing an application for bail only. In view of the above, we are not inclined to enlarge the accused/petitioner on bail at this stage.

The prayer for bail of the accused/petitioner is, therefore, rejected.

(Nishita Mhatre, J.) ( Tapash Mookherjee, J.)