Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
5(C) Of The Narcotic Drugs And ... vs In Re : Firaja Bibi & Anr. on 17 January, 2018
Author: Debasish Kar Gupta
Bench: Debasish Kar Gupta
1 2 17.01.2018
srm CRM No. 10316 of 2017 Re : An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure affirmed on 03.10.2018 in connection with Baishnabnagar P.S. Case No.964 of 2016 dated 21.12.2016 under Section 15(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
And
In Re : Firaja Bibi & Anr. ...Petitioners.
Mr. Asis Sanyal,
Mr. Prasun Kumar Dattam
Mr. Amarendra Chakraborty,
Mr. Arunabha Maitra,
Ms. Munmun Tewary,
Mr. Santanu Deb Roy ..for the Petitioners
Mr. Sanjay Bardhan,
Mr. Palash Chandra Majhi ..for the State
We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties and perused the case diary.
It is submitted by Mr. Asis Sanyal, ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners, that the petitioners were not FIR named accused persons. Their names were not included in the charge sheet. Subsequently, in view of the observations made by an order dated September 20, 2017 in CRR Nos.3040 of 2017 and 2263 of 2017 supplementary charge sheet was filed implicated the petitioners in this case. It is submitted by Mr. Sanyal that the 2 petitioner No.1 is the owner of the seized vehicle from which the contraband article (340 kgs. poppy straw) was recovered. According to him, this is a fit case to grant pre‐arrest bail in favour of the petitioners.
The above prayer has been opposed by the learned State Advocate drawing our attention towards the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to submit that the presumption of culpable mental state of the petitioners in the commission of offence cannot be ruled out at this stage. It is further submitted by him that January 24, 2018 has been fixed for framing charge in this case by the Trial Court.
On perusal of the materials in the case diary including the statements made by the witnesses under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., which are at pages 13, 58 to 60, we are not inclined to allow the prayer for pre‐arrest bail of the petitioner No.2, namely Jafiruddin Sekh and such prayer is rejected.
However, on further perusal of the aforesaid materials in the case diary, we prima facie do not find any material showing culpable mental state of the petitioner No.1 in the commission of offence. No material is placed before us to show that in the event the prayer of the petitioner No.1, namely Firaja Bibi for granting pre‐arrest bail is allowed, she is likely to abscond, we allow her prayer for bail.
3
In the event of arrest of the petitioner No.1, as aforesaid, she shall be released on bail to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/‐ with two sureties of like amount, one of whom must be local, on condition that after release, she shall surrender before the regular Court within four weeks thereafter.
This order is subject to the condition as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
It is, however, directed that petitioner No.1, as aforesaid, shall attend the hearing of the case before the learned Trial Court each and every day and on the occasion of her absence even on one occasion, this order shall stand cancelled automatically without any further reference to this Court.
It is abundant pre‐caution that we have not expressed our opinion with regard to the merits of this case.
The application for anticipatory bail bearing CRM 10316 of 2017 is, thus, party allowed.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties.
(Debasish Kar Gupta, J.) (Shekhar B. Saraf, J.) 4