Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
In Re:- Sunil Prasad Yadav vs Re: An Application For Bail Under ... on 10 August, 2016
Author: Ashim Kumar Roy
Bench: Ashim Kumar Roy
1 31 10.8.2016
pd. C.R.M. No. 6314 of 2016
In re:- Sunil Prasad Yadav ... Petitioner.
-And-
Re: An application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. affirmed on 5.8.2016 in connection with N.D.P.S. Case No.10/2016 arising out of Seizure Case No.01/NDPS/CL/P&I/CCP/WB/2016 dated 3.5.2016 under Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act. Mr. Sandipan Ganguly, Mr. Rohan Ojha ... For the petitioner.
Mr. Bhaskar Prasad Banerjee .... For the Union of India. Heard the learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the parties. Perused the Case Diary.
According to the case of the prosecution, acting on a source information, the officers of the Customs spotted a place at Sealdah Railway Station and therefrom, they recovered 3100 bottles of phensedyl, each of 100 ml., containing codeine phosphate. During the course of further investigation, they held a raid at a Godown, from where they also recovered 3800 bottles of phensedyl.
It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the Customs that before arrest of the petitioner, his statement was recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act and in such statement, he also admitted that those bottles of phensedyl, which were recovered from Sealdah Railway Station, also belonged to him.
The learned Counsel for the petitioner, however, claims that on the very next day, when he was produced before the court, he retracted from the said purported confession, which was extracted from him after assaulting him mercilessly.
2The learned Counsel for the Customs submits that during investigation, the landlord of the Godown was examined and he disclosed that the petitioner is the tenant in respect thereof.
Now, considering the above fact together with the seizure materials showing seizure of such contraband, which are much above the commercial quantity and after examining the same in the light of the provisions contained in Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, in our opinion, this is not a fit case for bail.
Accordingly, the application for bail stands rejected.
(Ashim Kumar Roy, J.) (Malay Marut Banerjee, J.) 3