Jay Prakash vs State

Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that he was implicated in N.D.P.S. case twice earlier without there being any material to substantiate allegations against him and this is the third case.

However, chronologically as Mr. Rao submitted, this is not the third case but the second one where he has been again implicated without any seizure.

After hearing Mr. Kabir, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, we have been able to ascertain that the petitioner was implicated earlier in

N.D.P.S. Special Case No.38 of 2017 arising out of Aberdeen Police Station Case No. 158 of 2015 dated 23rd March, 2015 under

Section 21(b) of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘said Act’) alleging some amount of contraband from his custody.

However, the concerned authorities being satisfied that the accused/petitioner had a medicine licence and that the alleged contrabands were small in

quantity, he was granted bail on 3rd June, 2015. The petitioner submits that the authorities having failed to satisfy their oblique motive, implicated him in another case subsequently being Aberdeen Police Station Case No. 253 of 2019 dated 30th April, 2019 under Section 22 (b) of the said Act in which the petitioner was granted bail by the Sessions Court giving due consideration to his prayer for bail. The said order has been annexed to this petition at page 40. We have perused the same. The petitioner yet has been implicated in a case being NDPS Special Case No. 07 of 2019.

Now, the petitioner has prayed for bail before us in connection with the said N.D.P.S. Case No. 7 of 2019 arising out of CCS Police Station Case

No.64 of 2019 dated 26th February, 2019 under Section 22 (c)/29 of the said Act. The case which has been made out by the petitioner is that he is repeatedly being implicated in N.D.P.S. case but on each occasion he was granted bail. In this case, the petitioner has been implicated only on the basis of the statement made by a co-accused one Abdul Rasheed who made a statement before the Investigating Officer that there was some money transaction between him and this petitioner.

Mr. Rao appearing for the State submits that this Abdul Rasheed is also involved in this case from whose custody contrabands were seized long ago.

From record, it reveals that previously, this Abdul Rasheed was granted bail by the learned Sessions Court but on the prayer made on behalf of the

State for cancellation of bail, his bail was cancelled. Thereafter this petitioner prayed for bail before this Hon’ble Court but having regard to the

cancellation of bail of the Principal accused prayer was made not to proceed with the said application with liberty to move before the Sessions Court.

However, in the changed circumstances, the petitioner has been advised to come out before this Court with a prayer for bail. What has transpired before us that the accused has been detained in custody for over six and half (almost seven) months, although, admittedly, nothing was seized from his

possession, the only allegation against him is that he seems to be in money transaction with the other accused Abdul Rasheed who was granted bail and subsequently cancelled on the prayer made on behalf of the State. It is on record that charge-sheet has already been submitted.

The petitioner has a drug licence and has been carrying on business in drug for a long time together with a business of travelling agency in relation whereof he had to had money transaction with Principal accused Rasheed. We have considered submissions of the state and on our meticulous scrutiny we find no seizure has been made from the possession of the petitioner and that he has been implicated only on the basis of the statement of co-accused write in custody.

In such circumstances, we find reasonable grounds to release the petitioner on bail particularly considering the fact that no seizure of any contraband could be made from his possession; he has been arrested and detained in custody for a long time even after submission of charge-sheet and that the detention is only on the basis of statement of the co-accused, we do not find any justification for further detention or custodial interrogation of the

petitioner.

Therefore, we direct that the petitioner be released on bail to the satisfaction of the learned Judge, Special Court under NDPS Act, Andaman and

Nicobar Islands, Port Blair, on condition that he will furnish a bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) only, with two (2) sureties each, one of whom must be local and on further condition that the accused/petitioner will furnish a bond stating that he will not transfer and/or sale and/or dispose of and/or encumber his landed property on which he has his residential house without leave of the Court or until the trial is over.

We are informed that charge has been framed in this case. We direct that the petitioner shall attend Court on each and every date to be fixed by the learned Trial Court and shall not leave the Island without the leave of the learned Trial Court. We also make it clear that the trial be expedited without granting unnecessary adjournment after the normal function of the Court is resumed.

With these observations, the application being CRM 4831 of 2020 is, thus, disposed of.