Sapam Romen Singh & Ors vs State Of Tripura & Ors

S.G. Chattopadhyay, J

[1] Both the applications are taken up together for disposal by a common order as they arise from the same incident.

[2] Applicants namely Sapam Romen Singh and Md. Mainul Haque who have filed this bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C are FIR named accused in Irani P. S. case number 035 of 2021 registered for offence punishable under Sections 21(c), 25, and 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985.

[3] Factual background of the case is as under:

Shri Pankaj Das, an Assistant Sub-Inspector of police of Irani Police Station lodged a suo moto FIR with the Officer-in-Charge of Irani Police Station on 05.06.2021 alleging, inter alia, that the day before at about 7.30 p.m, he received an information from his secret source that accused applicant Mainul Haque was selling 'yaba' tablets from his house along with his associates. Immediate presence of police was required at the spot to apprehend Mainul Haque and his associates. The complainant hurriedly recorded the information in the General Diary of the police station vide Irani P.S. DG Entry No.22 -04.06.2021and conveyed the said information to his higher authorities. Without further delay, he along with inspector Chaitanya Reang and other police staff including woman staff rushed to the house of said accused applicant Mainul Haque in West Yeazekhowra. Inspector Chaitanya Reang and other police staff cordoned the area and raid was conducted in the house of the accused. Feeling the presence of police, some unknown persons fled away from the house. One of them fell on the ground while he was trying to flee away. He also received injury in both of his legs. The person was detained by police. He identified himself as accused applicant Sapam Romen Singh and stated to police that he along with his partner Mainul Haque were engaged in selling contraband to local youths. He also stated to police that he came to the place on 03.06.2021 from Guwahati in a truck and he carried contraband drugs with him from Guwahati. Following his statement, police thoroughly searched the house of accused applicant Mainul Haque and recovered 2165 'yaba' tablets in 11 blue packets and 2760 yaba tablets in 14 black packets from the house of Mainul Haque. Total 4925 'yaba' tablets weighing 512.1 gm was thus recovered and seized from the dwelling house of Mainul Haque along with several smart mobile phones, 01 bundle silver foil etc. in presence of witnesses. The local Panhayat Pradhan Hanis Miah and Upa Pradhan Munim Ali appeared at the spot pursuant to a call received from police and in their presence, the contraband was seized. House owner accused Mainul Haque and his associate Sapam Romen Singh were arrested by police and brought to the police station.

[4] On the basis of the said FIR case was registered and investigation was taken up.

[5] Both the accused applicants have been undergoing imprisonment since their arrest on 05.06.2021. They have thus already suffered pre trial detention for a period of 4 months. The charge against them is that commercial quantity of contraband ('yaba' tablets) was recovered from their possession which is an offence punishable under Section 21(c) of the NDPS Act, 1985 punishment of which may extend to rigorous imprisonment for 20 years with fine. Minimum punishment prescribed for the offence is rigorous imprisonment for 10 years. Charge under Section 25 of the Act has also been brought against Mainul Haque as he permitted his house premises to be used for commission of offence under the NDPS Act. They have also been charged under Section 29 of the NDPS Act as they were party to a criminal conspiracy pursuant to which they stored contraband in the house of accused applicant Mainul Haque for the purpose of selling the same to the local youths.

[6] In this back ground, Ms. Sarama Deb, learned advocate appearing for the accused applicants urges for releasing them on bail raising various grounds. One of the grounds is that both of them have suffered pre trial incarnation for more than 4 months without adequate proof. Counsel contends that the accused applicants have fallen victim to a conspiracy. They are completely innocent and they never indulged in selling of drugs at any point of time. It is further argued by Ms.Deb, learned advocate that accused Sapam Romen Singh has been suffering from cancer which is at its advanced stage. Relying on the health status report dated 24.09.2021 of accused applicant Sapam Romen Singh issued from the Regional Cancer Centre of Agartala, counsel submits that the applicant has been referred to TATA Memorial hospital for treatment. Counsel contends that unless he is released on bail, he will die in jail for want of proper treatment. Therefore, counsel urges the court to enlarge him on bail on his health ground.

[7] With regard to the application submitted on behalf of accused Mainul Haque, counsel submits that Mainul Haque's wife has been suffering from serious gynecological problems for which she needs the presence and support of her husband. Counsel submits that they have a minor child and due to illness of the wife of Mainul Haque, there is none at home to take care of their child. Counsel submits that apart from the fact that there is no merit in the case, court may consider for the release of the accused on bail on the ground of the health condition of his wife.

[8] Heard Mr.Ratan Datta, learned Public Prosecutor, representing the State respondent who in his usual fairness submits that court may pass appropriate order on the application of accused Sapam Romen Singh who has been suffering from cancer.

[9] With regard to the application of accused Mainul Haque, Mr.Datta, learned PP, vehemently opposes his bail application on the ground that he used his house premises as a center for storage and selling of contraband and ruined the lives of local youths and their families by making them drug addicts. Counsel submits that he allowed his associates to live in his house to operate the illegal business of drug peddling from there. Counsel submits that no genuine ground has been made out for release of the accused on bail.

[10] Mr.Datta, learned PP, further contends that since commercial quantity of contraband was recovered from the possession of the accused, the restrictions with regard to bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act will apply in this case and there is no ground to overcome the restrictions under Section 37 and allow bail to the accused. Counsel contends that if the accused is released on bail, he will repeat the same offence and ruin the society. Counsel urges the court to take into consideration the ramification of his release on bail and reject his bail application.

[11] Perused the updated case diary and considered the submissions made at the bar. In the course of investigation, police has recorded the statements of the neighbours of accused Mainul Haque who have supported the charge that said accused has been using his dwelling house for storage and sell of drugs among the local youths. The prosecution papers available in the CD indicates that police conducted raid in his house pursuant to a secret information in the presence of the Pradhan and Upa-Pradhan of the village and recovered and seized commercial quantity of contraband from the dwelling hut of the accused. Accused Mainul Haque along with his partner Sapam Romen Singh was arrested at the spot and contraband recovered from their possession was seized by police.

[12] In the case of KANWAR SINGH MEENA VS.STATE OF RAJASTHAN reported in (2012) 12 SCC 180, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that Section 439 Cr.P.C confers very wide powers on the High Court and the court of Sessions. The Apex Court in the said judgment laid down the parameters to be considered for granting or refusing bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C and observed as under:

"10. Thus, Section 439 of the Code confers very wide powers on the High Court and the Court of Session regarding bail. But, while granting bail, the High Court and the Sessions Court are guided by the same considerations as other courts. That is to say, the gravity of the crime, the character of the evidence, position and status of the accused with reference to the victim and witnesses, the likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice and repeating the offence, the possibility of his tampering with the witnesses and obstructing the course of justice and such other grounds are required to be taken into consideration. Each criminal case presents its own peculiar factual scenario and, therefore, certain grounds peculiar to a particular case may have to be taken into account by the court. The court has to only opine as to whether there is prima facie case against the accused. The court must not undertake meticulous examination of the evidence collected by the police and comment on the same. Such assessment of evidence and premature comments are likely to deprive the accused of a fair trial. .........................................."

[13] There is no doubt that the materials available on record have made out a prima facie case against both of the petitioners. They are charged with a serious offence for which severe punishment has been prescribed under law. There are adequate materials on record which indicate that accused applicant Mainul Haque has been carrying out drug peddling over a quite long period of time for which he used his own house premises. Likelihood of his repeating the offence and possibility of his tampering with the witnesses and obstructing the course of justice cannot be ruled out. Therefore, this court is of the view that release of the accused Mainul Haque on bail at this stage shall not be appropriate. In so far as the case of accused Sapam Romen Singh is concerned, even though there is a prima facie case against him, there is no denial of the fact that he has been suffering from cancer and the regional cancer center of Agartala has referred him for treatment in TATA Memorial hospital outside the state. Considering the health ground of the accused applicant namely Sapam Romen Singh, this court is of the view that it would be unjust to refuse bail to him.

[14] For the reasons stated above, the bail petition of accused applicant Mainul Haque is rejected and the petition of Sapam Romen Singh is allowed.

[15] Accused Sapam Romen Singh shall be released on bail on his furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- with 01 surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court on condition that after completing his treatment, he will return to Kailashahar in Unakoti Judicial District and co-operate with the investigating officer of Irani Police Station to complete the investigation and he will not obstruct the course of investigation in any manner what so ever.

[16] In terms of the above, both the bail applications are disposed of.

Return the CD.