Tripura High Court
Badsha Mia vs The State Of Tripura on 12 May, 2021
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2021 TRI 257
Author: S. G. Chattopadhyay
Bench: S. G. Chattopadhyay
Page 1 of 3
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
A.B. No.23 of 2021
Badsha Mia
............... Petitioner(s).
Vs.
The State of Tripura .
............... Respondent(s).
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S. Ali, Advocate.
For Respondent(s): Mr. Ratan Datta, Public Prosecutor.
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. G. CHATTOPADHYAY
ORDER
12/05/2021 [1] This application under Section 438 Cr. P.C has been filed by accused Badsha Mia seeking pre-arrest bail in KLC P.S Case No.2020/KLC/001 which has been registered against him under Sections 20(b) (ii) (b) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
[2] The factual background of the case is as under:
Nandan Das, Sub-Inspector of Police of Kalamchoura police station lodged a suo motu FIR with the Officer-in-Charge of Kalamchoura police station in Sepahijala District alleging, inter allia, that pursuant to secret information, the police party led by him intercepted auto rickshaw bearing registration No.TR-01C-3796 at Ratandulla and conducted search in the said vehicle. During search they recovered 7.5 kg dried Ganja from the said vehicle in which the petitioner was travelling along with its driver. Seeing police he fled away from the place of occurrence.Page 2 of 3
[3] Apprehending arrest in the case, the petitioner has approached this court for pre-arrest bail. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner is innocent who has been falsely implicated in the case. Further contention of the petitioner is that the quantity of the contraband allegedly seized by the informant is less than commercial quantity and as such, there is no impediment under the law to release him on bail in the case. It is also contended by the learned counsel that the petitioner is a permanent resident within the jurisdiction of the trial court and therefore, there is no likelihood of his fleeing away from the jurisdiction of the trial court. On such grounds, learned counsel urges the court for granting bail to the accused. [4] Mr. Ratan Datta, learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand submits that the present case has been registered under the NDPS Act and there are adequate materials against the petitioner in support of his implication in the alleged offence. Further submission of learned P.P is that huge quantity of contraband was seized from the possession of the accused who was travelling in the auto rickshaw from which the contraband was seized. According to learned P.P, had the accused been innocent, he could have offered an explanation to the police officer in support of his innocence instead of fleeing away from the spot. Learned P.P, therefore, contends that this is not a fit case where accused can be released on bail and according to learned P.P release of the accused under pre arrest bail at this stage will spoil the investigation of the case. Page 3 of 3 Learned P.P therefore, urges the court rejection of his bail application.
[5] The parameters for consideration of such application are the nature of accusation, the severity of punishment and prima facie satisfaction of the court about the involvement of the accused in the alleged offence, possibility of his fleeing away from the jurisdiction of the trial court and the likelihood hood of his tampering with the prosecution evidence.
[6] Perused the case diary and considered the submissions of the learned counsel representing the parties, materials available on record has made out a strong prima facie case against the accused. There is merit in the submission of learned P.P that a thorough investigation would be necessary to book the associates of accused and this is not a fit case for granting custodial immunity to the petitioner by granting pre-arrest bail to him. His bail application is, therefore, rejected and the case is disposed of.
Return the case diary.
JUDGE Dipankar