Laxman Das vs State Of Tripura And Ors

Heard Mr. J. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. Ratan Datta, learned PP appearing for the State-respondent.

By way of filing this petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Cr.P.C., the petitioner has challenged the order dated 31.01.2020 passed by the learned Special Judge (NDPS),Court No.2, West Tripura, Agartala in connection with A.D. Nagar PS case no. 2016/ADN/0050 [renumbered as Special (NDPS) case No. 30 of 2016] under Sections 20(B)(2)/25/29 of the NDPS Act.

Briefly stated, in connection with the present case, the Investigating Officer had submitted charge-sheet. In the charge-sheet, the petitioner, Laxman Das has been shown as an absconder. During the course of proceeding, the learned Special Judge had issued non-bailable warrant of arrest against the petitioner, Laxman Das.

It is the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that for the first time the petitioner has noticed that he was made an accused in the instant case.

In view of this matter, in my opinion, issuance of non-bailable warrant of arrest against the petitioner is not justified in the circumstance of the case.

Accordingly, I set-aside the order dated 31.01.2020 by which the learned Special Judge (NDPS) Court No.2, West Tripura, Agartala had issued non-bailable warrant of arrest against the petitioner, Laxman Das.

However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I direct the petitioner, Laxman Das to appear before the learned Special Judge (NDPS) Court No.2, West Tripura, Agartala on 29.06.2020 at 10.30 a.m. positively, otherwise the learned Special Judge (NDPS) Court no.2, shall have the discretion to issue non-bailable warrant of arrest against the petitioner, Laxman Das.

It is further clarified that on such appearance of the petitioner, Laxman Das, the learned Special Judge will decide the bail application, if any, according to merits and keeping in mind that the petitioner was not noticed that he was wanted in connection with the case, though, the Investigating Officer could have taken the recourse of Section 41 Cr.P.C. Even, this court has noticed that the Investigating Officer did not take any steps for attachment of his property and for necessary proclamation in accordance with law, if he was really absconded and did not co-operate with the investigation.

With the above observation and direction the instant petition stands disposed of.