Atiur Khan @ Monglu vs State Of West Bengal

The petitioner undertakes to affirm and stamp the petition/application as per the Rules within a month of resumption of normal functioning of the court.

Subject to such undertaking, the application is taken up through video conference.

Accordingly, the application being CRAN 3578 of 2020 is disposed of. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that no narcotic substance has been

seized from his possession and the complicity as transpiring from the statement of the co-accused before a police officer is inadmissible evidence.

Learned lawyer of the State submits that the petitioner was dealing in narcotic substance as appearing from the statement of the witnesses and

investigation is at a nascent stage.

We have considered the materials on record. None of the statements of the witnesses relate to the role of the petitioner in the alleged transaction.

Mere, vague and general statements of involvement in narcotic trade may not be sufficient to create a prima facie case against the petitioner. In the

light of the aforesaid facts and as the complicity of the petitioner in the instant transaction transpires from the statement of the co-accused before a

police officer which is inadmissible in evidence, we are of the opinion that the petitioner has been able to rebut the statutory restriction under Section

37 of the NDPS Act and the petitioner may be granted anticipatory bail however, subject to strict conditions.

Accordingly, we direct that in the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties of

like amount, to the satisfaction of the arresting officer and subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 and while on bail he shall not leave the jurisdiction of Suti Police Station and shall report to the officer-in-charge, Suti Police Station

once in a week until further order.

The application for anticipatory bail is, accordingly, allowed.