Tripura High Court
The State Of Tripura vs Dhruba Manik Jamatia on 27 August, 2018
Author: S. Talapatra
Bench: S. Talapatra
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
Crl. Petn. No.42 of 2018
The State of Tripura
-----Petitioner (s)
Versus
Dhruba Manik Jamatia
----Respondent(s)
For Petitioner (s) : Mr. A.K. Bhowmik, Advocate General Mr. B. Choudhury, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S. Lodh, Adv.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA
Order
27.08.2018
Heard Mr. A.K. Bhowmik, learned Advocate General assisted by Mr. B. Choudhury, learned PP appearing for the State as well as Mr. S. Lodh, learned counsel appearing for the accused respondent.
In guise of this petition filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. the State has urged this court to cancel the bail as granted by the order dated 27.06.2018 in A.B. 61 of 2018 in connection with Kakaraban P.S. Case No.2018/KKB/075 under Section 20(b) (c) and 22(c) of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 , the NDPS Act in short.
Mr. Bhowmik, learned Advocate General has submitted that from the subsequent investigation it surfaced that one of the principal offenders, namely Shaymal Das and the others keep their vehicles for purpose of transporting phensedyl and ganja [cannabis] in the courtyard of the accused-respondent, even though no substance has been recovered from those vehicles as yet. But the witness [the name withheld] has stated to have witnessed such carriage. The said accused, Shyamal Das collaborated and operated in the illegal business of contraband narcotic drugs from the house of the respondent and on using the same place as the centre of their business. Many of them, park their vehicles in the said courtyard. When Shyamal Das was arrested in Kolkata, new evidence has been gathered. The said evidence shows that Shyamal Das formed a racket for dealing in the narcotic drugs and substance. It has been asserted that in the said Page 2 of 4 racket, the respondent is active. For that reason, the custodial interrogation of the accused respondent is extremely required. Mr. Bhowmik, learned Advocate General has further submitted that from perusal of the case diary, it would be apparent that the respondent is involved in the racket which is operating to deal with the narcotic drugs and substances. Mr. Bhowmik, learned Advocate General has referred to the order dated 05.07.2018 delivered in A.B. No.67 of 2018 which was filed for pre-arrest bail by said Shyamal Das. In the said order dated 05.07.2018 the principal offender, Shyamal Das was directed to "appear/surrender before the investigating officer within 7(seven) days from the date of receipt of this order to „join and assist the process‟ of investigation. Thereafter, in the event of his arrest in connection with Kakraban PS case no.2018/KKB/075 under Sections 20(b)(c)/22(c) of the NDPS Act, the arresting authority shall release the petitioner, Shyamal Das on interim bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 1 lakh supported by two sureties of the like amount till 06.08.2018. It is further directed that the investigating authority shall investigate the actual involvement of the owner of the vehicle with carrying of any such contraband goods by his vehicle as alleged in the complaint. The investigating authority is also directed to furnish the report before this court on 06.08.2018."
Mr. Lodh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has also referred the said order, but for different purpose as he has immediately submitted that since Shyamal Das was arrested in Kolkata he could not get benefit of the order of the anticipatory bail. He was produced before the special court on transit remand. Mr. Lodh, learned counsel has further submitted that this application is misconceived and it has failed to make out any ground for cancellation of the privilege of bail and the materials have not been disclosed, except one police station diary vide GD Entry No.31 dated 10.07.2018 where it has been recorded that one Shyamal Bhowmik and another Nikhil Sarkar who are the seizure witnesses of the seized contraband articles in connection with Kakaraban P.S. Case No 2018/KKB/075 under Section 120(B) of IPC and Section 20(b)(c) and 22(c) of the NDPS Act have alleged that the accused, namely Dhruba Manik Jamatia with some unknown persons tried to influence them and threaten them not to give any Page 3 of 4 statement before the court or in the police against them. Mr. Lodh, learned counsel has challenged that no such complaint has been made by those persons in writing and it is a creation of the police to prepare the ground for making this petition. Mr. Lodh, learned counsel has further contended that there cannot be any tangible reason that the petitioner would threat those seizure witnesses as the seizure was caused in place with which the accused respondent does not have any link in any manner and it has been adverted by the investigating agency as well. That apart, Mr. Lodh, learned counsel has relied certain decisions of the apex court to advance his contention that the bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during the trial. In this regard, the reference has been made to Dolat Ram & Others vs. State of Harayana, reported in (1995) 1 SCC 349, where the apex court has observed as under:
"4. Rejection of bail in a non-bailable case at the initial stage and the cancellation of bail so granted, have to be considered and dealt with on different basis. Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of the bail, already granted. Generally speaking, the grounds for cancellation of bail, broadly (illustrative and not exhaustive) are: interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of Justice or evasion or attempt to evade the due course of justice or abuse of the concession granted to the accused in any manner. The satisfaction of the court, on the basis of material placed on the record of the possibility of the accused absconding is yet another reason justifying the cancellation of bail. However, bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during the trial. These principles, it appears, were lost sight of by the High Court when it decided to cancel the bail, already granted. The High Court it appears to us overlooked the distinction of the factors relevant for rejecting bail in a non- bailable case in the first instance and the cancellation of bail already granted."
Mr. Lodh, learned counsel has further relied on a decision of the apex court in Mehboob Dawood Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2004) 2 SCC 362, where the apex court has restated the principle of Dolat Ram (supra) but qualified on curving out that if a person whom the bail has been granted either tries to interfere with the course of justice or attempts to tamper with evidence or witnesses or threatens witnesses or indulges in similar Page 4 of 4 activities which would hamper smooth investigation or trial, bail granted can be canceled.
It is well settled principle in the criminal jurisprudence that the bail only can be cancelled when the person who has been given the privilege of bail attempts to interfere with the due process of administration of justice or evades the court of justice or abuses the liberty granted to him.
Having scrutinized the case diary as produced by Mr. Choudhury, learned PP and the materials introduced by the accused-respondent, this court finds that two persons whose names appear in the police station diary [Exbt.3] whether filed any complaint in writing to the police or not does not get any support from the case diary. This court finds the submission of Mr. Lodh, learned counsel appearing for the accused-respondent in this regard cannot be discarded. Criminal liability is the liability of the individual, unless there are strong materials to show that there is association in committing the crime. Materials in respect of the association of the accused-respondent are absent except some peripheral facts. Those facts are so nebulous in nature, no prudent person can draw any inference adverse to the accused respondent.
Mr. Lodh, learned counsel however has attempted to show certain serious illegality granting bail or the police remand in respect of Shyamal Das but this court can not consider those aspects in this action.
In view of the above observation, this court is not inclined to interfere with the privilege of bail granted to the accused respondent inasmuch the petitioner-state has failed to make out a case to demonstrate that the accused respondent has interfered with the investigation or in the process of the court.
Hence, this petition stands dismissed.
The case diary as produced be returned under a sealed cover to Mr. Choudhury, learned PP forthwith. The other documents be returned to Mr. Lodh, learned counsel appearing for the accused-respondent.
JUDGE Sujay