Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
5.06.2018 Under Sections 22(C)/23(C) ... vs In Re: Rajib Kumar Das @ Raju on 22 November, 2018
1 22.11.18
Sl. No.25 akd [Rejected] C. R. M. 10120 of 2018 In Re: An application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 15.11.2018 in connection with Bhaktinagar Police Station Case No. 418 of 2018 dated 15.06.2018 under Sections 22(c)/23(c) of the NDPS Act. (NDPS Case No. 20 of 2018) And In Re: Rajib Kumar Das @ Raju ... ... Petitioner Md. Sabir Ahamed .. Advocate Mr. Hillol Saha Podder .. Advocate ... ... for the petitioner Mr. Sanhay Bardhan .. Advocate Mr. Palash Chandra Majhi .. Advocate ... ... for the State The petitioner is seeking bail in connection with a case relating to offences punishable under Sections 22(c)/23(c) of the NDPS Act.
It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is in custody for about 160 days and that he is in no way connected with the transportation of a large consignment of relaxo cough syrup containing codeine mixture above commercial quantity. It is also contended that the arrest memo bears the number of the FIR, which was subsequently registered, clearly disclosing falsehood in the prosecution case. It is the contention of the petitioner that his wife was the owner of M/s. Sabita Medico, the consignee of the seized articles and she had sold the said business to one Subir Kumar Dhar. It is further submitted that a writ petition has been filed by one Sri Sankar Sarkar wherein the consignment note annexed to the petition in respect of the transaction in question is a forged document.
2
Learned Counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the petitioner was present at the spot when the consignment was seized. Statements of the independent witnesses to the seizure have supported such contention. He also contends that the petitioner is taking inconsistent stances with regard to his control over the business of M/s. Sabita Medico. On the one hand, he claims that it has already been sold whereas on the other hand he has produced documents to show that the licence has been extended till July, 2022 and is standing in the name of his wife.
We have considered the rival submissions made on behalf of the parties. We note that the presence of the petitioner has been noted by the independent witnesses apart from the members of the raiding party. Hence, there are prima facie materials to connect the petitioner with the alleged seizure of relaxo cough syrup containing codeine mixture above commercial quantity. Although the petitioner has strenuously argued that he is in no way connected with the aforesaid transaction and/or business of M/s. Sabita Medico and had sold the same to another person, we note that the licence of the business continues to stand in the name of the petitioner's wife. These issues with regard to ownership and/or conducting of business of the consignee namely, M/s. Sabita Medico are germane in the instant case. Investigation in the matter is still in progress. Hence, we are not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.
The application for bail is thus rejected.
(Madhumati Mitra, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)
3