AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWAJIT PALIT
This application under Section 483(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 is filed for granting bail to the accused in custody, namely Sri Partha Das, in connection with Mungiakami P.S. Case No. 2025/MGK/012, corresponding to Spl. NDPS 21 of 2026, which is now pending before the Ld. Special Judge, NDPS, Court No.2, Khowai Tripura.
Heard Learned Sr. Counsel Mr. Bibhal Nandi Majumder, assisted by Learned Counsel Mr. Samrat Sarkar and Learned Counsel Mr. Janardhan Bhattacharjee, appearing on behalf of the accused person in custody, and also heard Learned PP Mr. Raju Datta, appearing on behalf of the respondent-State.
At the time of hearing, Learned Sr. Counsel for the accused in custody drawn the attention of the Court to the fact that, in this case, the prosecution was set into motion on the basis of an FIR laid by one SI Rajakmoni Jamatia on 14.10.2025, stating that on that day, he received information that one Tata Punch vehicle bearing Registration No. TR01-A-0852 was proceeding towards Ambassa from Teliamura with contraband items. After obtaining necessary permission, he left the PS for intercepting the said vehicle. Thereafter, the police chased the suspected vehicle from 41 Miles but could not trace it out. Later on, the police personnel went to Champlai and found one white-coloured Tata Punch parked beside Khirod Nayak Para J.B. School, Champlai, and during the search of the vehicle, a total of 54 packets of dry ganja were recovered, weighing about 219 kgs. The said SI lodged a suo-moto complaint before the OC of the concerned police station, and accordingly, Mungiakami P.S. Case No. 2025/MGK/012 under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C)/25/29 of the NDPS Act, 1985, was registered against the driver/owner of the vehicle and his associates.
The IO, on completion of the investigation, submitted the chargesheet against the present accused in custody, namely Sri Partha Das, showing him as an absconder. Thereafter, the Learned Trial Court, i.e., the Learned Spl. Judge, NDPS, Court No. 2, Khowai, Tripura, issued summons upon the accused, and accordingly, he appeared and prayed for bail. But his bail application was rejected vide order dated 04.07.2026, and thereafter, on subsequent occasions, his bail application was also rejected.
After that, the accused filed a bail application before this High Court, and a co-ordinate Bench of this High Court, by order dated 31.07.2026 passed in BA No. 133 of 2026, rejected his bail application. Thereafter, again, the accused has preferred their present bail application before this Court.
Learned Sr. Counsel, at the time of hearing, submitted that in the order dated 31.07.2026, the co-ordinate Bench of this High Court in paragraph 19 of the said order observed that there was another case pending against the present accused. However, factually, the present accused was never involved in such a case. Therefore, the observation of the Hon’ble High Court was not proper. Furthermore, when the Learned Trial Court issued summons to the accused by order dated 18.08.2026, there was no scope on the part of the Learned Trial Court to reject his bail application. Therefore, the Learned Trial Court committed an error in refusing the bail application.
It was further submitted that, in pursuance of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Tarsem Lal vs. Directorate of Enforcement, Jalandhar Zonal Office, reported in AIR 2024 Supreme Court 2512, there is/was no scope to refuse bail to the accused. So, according to Learned Sr. Counsel, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforesaid case, the present accused deserves to be released on bail in any condition, and it was urged before this Court to release him on bail in any condition.
Learned Sr. Counsel Mr. Majumder, also drawn the attention of the Court by referring Section 45 of the PMLA Act and Section 37 of the NDPS Act and submitted that the spirit of both the sections are almost same. Therefore, since bail was granted in the aforesaid case by the Hon’ble Apex Court, so a similar view may be taken in the present case also in favour of the present accused in custody.
Learned Sr. Counsel further submitted that no contraband item was recovered from the possession of the accused in this case by the I.O. Just on the basis of some imaginary facts, he has been falsely charge-sheeted. Moreso, during the investigation, no notice was served upon him. So, in summing up, Learned Sr. Counsel urged for releasing the accused on bail in any condition.
On the other hand, Learned PP, appearing on behalf of the State respondent, submitted that the accused has not come before this Court with clean hands. According to Learned PP, the present accused is the owner of the seized offending vehicle from which the contraband item was seized by the IO.
It was further submitted that Learned Sr. Counsel Mr. Majumder, although submitted that the present accused was not involved in any other criminal case, but in paragraph 19 of the order passed by the co-ordinate Bench in BA No. 133 of 2026, this High Court gave a clear finding showing the implication of the accused with the alleged offence. Furthermore, in course of the investigation, notice was issued to the present accused in custody, but in spite of the issuance of such notice, he did not comply with the same, for which the chargesheet was submitted against him, showing him as an absconder. Although the Learned Trial Court issued summons upon him by order dated 18.08.2026, he appeared before the Court. Therefore, after hearing both sides, the Learned Trial Court rightly refused his bail application.
It was further submitted that the co-ordinate Bench of this High Court, at the time of disposal of Bail Application No. 133 of 2026, had dealt with the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tarsem Lal (supra) and, after consideration of all the aspects, refused the bail application filed by the accused in custody. Therefore, at this stage, there is no scope on the part of this Court to give a contrary view to the judgment/order delivered by the co-ordinate Bench of this High Court, as stated (supra).
Further, it was submitted that before this Court, no fresh material could be placed on record by the accused for consideration of his bail application. So, there is no merit in the bail application filed by the accused, and as such, Learned PP prayed for dismissal of the bail application.
Considered.
I have heard both sides at length and perused the relevant prosecution papers, as well as the Case Diary produced by the Learned PP at the time of hearing, along with the record of the Learned Trial Court.
Admittedly, in this case, the IO submitted a chargesheet against the accused, showing him as an absconder.
Though the Learned Trial Court, at the time of issuing the process, only issued summons upon him, thereafter, when he appeared before the Court, his bail application was rejected by the Learned Trial Court after hearing both sides. Thereafter, the present accused filed a bail application before this Court, as stated (supra), and at the time of hearing, the co-ordinate Bench of this High Court, by order dated 31.07.2026, considered all the relevant aspects of this case and also considered the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Tarsem Lal (supra). In paragraph No. 19, the co-ordinate Bench of this High Court made the following observation:-
“[19] Now, so far the present case in hand is concerned, firstly, it is not a complaint case and secondly, the case is concerning commercial quantity of contraband items for which rigor of Section 37 of the NDPS Act is applicable. In such a situation, the submission of Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel, that just because of summons was issued, the accused is automatically entitled to get bail, cannot be accepted. Now, so far as the second point of argument of Mr. Bhattacharjee that there is no incriminating material against the present accused person to attract the barring provision of section 37, is concerned, there is no material available at this stage that the alleged vehicle was not under control and supervision or possession of the accused petitioner when it was allegedly detained by the police with contraband items. The case is concerning commercial quantity of Ganja. As per the chargesheet, even several false number plates were found inside the alleged vehicle and the number plate as was affixed to the said vehicle also displayed wrong registration number. Some other papers for displaying "PRESS" and "ON DUTY TELECOM" were also found in the said vehicle and therefore, prima-facie, it appears that the said vehicle was mainly engaged for such drug trafficking showing false display of number plates etc. and no materials in contrary is also available to infer that the owner of the vehicle had no knowledge of the same. Moreover, from the earlier bail application filed before the Ld. Special Judge, as indicated earlier, it appears that another case was also registered against the present accused petitioner concerning offences under NDPS Act bearing No. Special (NDPS) 19 of 2026. Therefore, rigor of section 37 of the Act is not mitigated in this case.”
From the aforesaid observation, it appears that the co-ordinate Bench, considering the entire materials on record and the relevant prosecution papers, came to the observation that, as per the chargesheet, several false number plates were found inside the alleged vehicle, and the number plate affixed to the said vehicle also displayed a wrong registration number. Some other papers displaying “Press” and “On Duty Telecom” were also found in the said vehicle, and therefore, prima facie, it appears that the said vehicle was mainly engaged for such drug trafficking and for displaying false number plates, etc., and no material to the contrary is also available to infer that the owner of the vehicle had no knowledge of the same. Finally, the co-ordinate Bench came to the observation that, in view of the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, he is not entitled to bail in the case.
The accused in custody has not challenged the said order rejecting his bail application before any higher forum. Therefore, the said order passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this High Court has, by this time, attained finality. Moreso, at this stage, there is no scope on the part of this Court to re-appreciate the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tarsem Lal (supra), as the same judgment has been discussed and dealt with by the co-ordinate bench, although the prosecution has failed to establish that any other case was pending against the accused in custody.
So, considering the materials available on record, this Court is of the considered view that the accused, who is in custody, has not been able to place any fresh material on record warranting a fresh consideration of his bail application. So, on the same subject matter, which has already been discussed and decided, the same cannot be reconsidered by this Court while considering the bail application filed on behalf of the accused.
Furthermore, learned PP, at the time of hearing, also referred another judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Biswajit Dey v. State of Assam, reported in (2025) 3 SCC 241, wherein, in paragraph 33, the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed as under:-
“Broadly speaking there are four scenarios
33.Though seizure of drugs/substances from conveyances can take place in a number of situations, yet broadly speaking there are four scenarios in which the drug or substance is seized from a conveyance. Firstly, where the owner of the vehicle is the person from whom the possession of contraband drugs/substance is recovered. Secondly, where the contraband is recovered from the possession of the agent of the owner i.e. like driver or cleaner hired by the owner. Thirdly, where the vehicle has been stolen by the accused and contraband is recovered from such stolen vehicle. Fourthly, where the contraband is seized/recovered from a third-party occupant (with or without consideration) of the vehicle without any allegation by the police that the contraband was stored and transported in the vehicle with the owner's knowledge and connivance. In the first two scenarios, the owner of the vehicle and/or his agent would necessarily be arrayed as an accused. In the third and fourth scenario, the owner of the vehicle and/or his agent would not be arrayed as an accused.”
Referring the same, the learned PP further submitted that the same observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court would also be applicable in the present case.
I have also perused the said judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court as referred (supra), and it appears that the facts of the present case covers the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforenoted case. S, in view of the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforenoted case, at this stage, there is no scope to draw any adverse presumption against the prosecution in the present case. Since the accused, by adducing evidence on record, has failed to establish that he is totally innocent and has been falsely implicated.
In view of the above, there is no merit in the bail application filed by the accused, and accordingly, the same stands dismissed/rejected. The accused is to remain in J/C as before.
Send down the record to the Learned Trial Court along with a copy of this order.
Return back the CD to IO along with a copy of this order.