Pidul Das vs State Of Tripura

S. G. Chattopadhyay, J

[1] This application under Section 439 Cr. P. C has been filed for granting bail to Pidul Das who is an FIR named accused in Khowai P.S Case No.2021/KHW/061 under Sections 22(c), 22(b), 27 and 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. Accused has been undergoing imprisonment since his arrest on 30.06.2021 i.e. for more than 100 days.

[2] Case against the accused petitioner is that 20.80 gm heroin and 990 Yaba tablets were recovered from the house of Apajit Roy by police during a raid in the house on 17.06.2021 at 10.30 a.m. Immediately after raid, recovery and seizure of the contraband, the complainant police officer lodged a suo motu complaint with the Officer-in-Charge of Khowai police station on the basis of which a case was registered and investigation was taken up.

[3] In the course of investigation, the present petitioner was arrested by police and he was taken into custody. Several bail applications for him was filed in the trial court which were rejected. Petitioner has therefore, approached this Court by filing this petition under Section 439 Cr. P. C.

[4] Heard Mr. B. Deb, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner who contends that there is no iota of evidence against the petitioner supporting his arrest and detention in custody. Counsel submits that nothing was seized from the possession of the accused. According to Mr. B. Deb, learned counsel, no person can be detained in custody simply on the basis of statements of witnesses unacquinted with the case, without verification of his antecedents and involvement in the alleged crime. Counsel has relied on various decisions of this Court. Relying on the decision of the judgment and the order passed by this court on 20.08.2019 in AB No. 61 of 2018 (Dhruba Manik Jamatia Vrs. The State of Tripura) counsel submits that without any evidence of worth, no person can be detained in custody. Learned counsel has also relied on the decision dated 04.01.2020 of this High Court in BA No.157/2019 wherein this Court granted bail to the accused for similar offence after scrutinizing the entire case record and finding that no contraband was recovered from the possession of the accused. Another order dated 21.05.2021 in BA No.32 of 2021 passed by this Court is also relied upon by learned counsel where the accused was granted bail because no contraband was recovered from his possession. Counsel has also relied on the decision dated 31.07.2018 of the Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No.949 of 2018 (Surinder Kumar Khanna Vrs. Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence) wherein the Apex Court has held as under:

"14. In the present case it is accepted that apart from the aforesaid statements of co-accused there is no material suggesting involvement of the appellant in the crime in question. We are thus left with only one piece of material that is the confessional statements of the co-accused as stated above. On the touchstone of law laid down by this Court such a confessional statement of a co-accused cannot by itself be taken as a substantive piece of evidence against another co-accused and can at best be used or utilized in order to lend assurance to the Court. In the absence of any substantive evidence it would be inappropriate to base the conviction of the appellant purely on the statements of co-accused. The appellant is therefore entitled to be acquitted of the charges leveled against him. We, therefore, accept this appeal, set aside the orders of conviction and sentence For example: State vs. Nalini, (1999) 5 SCC 253, paras 424 and 704 and acquit the appellant. The appellant shall be released forthwith unless his custody is required in connection with any other offence."

[5] Counsel submits that apart from the statement of the co-accused and some other witnesses, there is no other material against the petitioner in support of the charge against him. Learned counsel therefore, urges the Court to release the accused on bail in the light of the said judgment of the Apex Court.

[6] Mr. Ratan Datta, learned Public Prosecutor while opposing the bail application has referred to the materials available against the accused in the case diary. With regard to the antecedents of the accused learned Public Prosecutor submits that accused is a habitual offender against whom another case vide Khowai P.S Case No. 2020 KHW/038 dated 25/2/2020 under Section 21(b) for the similar offence is pending. Learned Public Prosecutor refers to the statements of the neighbours of the accused who has stated that accused along with his father-in-law is engaged in drug paddling over a long period of time. Counsel also submits that quantity of contraband seized from the possession of his father-in-law is of commercial quantity. Since there are prima facie materials against the accused with regard to his involvement in the offence, learned P.P. submits that the restrictions provided under Section 37 NDPS Act will apply in this case and under no circumstance, the accused can be enlarged on bail. Counsel therefore, urges the court to reject the bail application.

[7] Perused the entire case diary, particularly the statements of the witnesses who have supported the charge against the accused. After seizure, the contraband was sent State Forensic Science Laboratory who has confirmed in their report dated 26.07.2021 that the contraband is positive for the presence of heroin. A good prima facie case is thus made out against the accused.

[8] In view of the antecedent of the accused and the materials available against him, this Court is of the view that he should not be granted bail at this stage. Accordingly, his bail application stands rejected. Return the Case Diary.