Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Samim Sk vs Unknown on 25 January, 2021
25.01.2021
Item No.2
Ct.No.28
Subha
Allowed
C.R.M. 279 of 2021
(Via Video Conference)
In Re : An Application for bail under Section 439 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure.
And
In the matter of : Samim Sk. ... Petitioner.
Mr. Amitabha Karmakar
Mr. Arup Kumar Bhowmick
... For the Petitioner.
Mr. Ranabir Roychowdhury,
Mr. Sanjoy Bardhan
Mr. Rudradipta Nandy ... For the State.
The present application under Section 439 of the
code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the
petitioner in connection with Baishnabnagar P.S. Case No.
204 of 2020 dated 30-04-2020 under Sections 21(c)/29 of the
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (Special
Case No.30 of 2020).
The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner
submits that the petitioner was arrested and produced
before the Learned Judge, Special Court, 2nd Court, Malda
on 30th April, 2020 for the alleged offence punishable under
Section 21(c) read with Section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985('NDPS Act'). His prayer
for bail was rejected. As no charge sheet was filed within
the mandatory period of 180 days, the petitioner filed an
application for statutory bail under Section 167(2) of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973('CrPC') on 28th October,
2020 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Malda
since there was no available Special Court at that juncture.
However, on the said date, on a purported plea that "the
period of detention cannot be calculated", the petition was
sent to the Additional District Judge, 3rd Court, Malda. Two
days thereafter, i.e., on 30th October, 2020, the charge-sheet
dated 27th October, 2020, was filed before the learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Malda. On the next date fixed for
hearing, i.e., on 18th November, 2020, the petitioner renewed
his prayer for statutory bail stating inter alia that the charge
sheet had not been filed within the statutory period and that
the investigating officer did not also pray for any extension of
time. The petitioner's prayer was, however, rejected by the
Learned Judge, Special 3rd Court, Malda.
He argues that the learned court below
misconstrued the mandate of Section 167(2) and erred in
rejecting the petitioner's prayer for statutory bail though he
had rightly invoked the provisions thereof, after completion
of the mandatory period of 180 days for filing of charge
sheet.
The learned advocate appearing for the State
opposes the petitioner's prayer and submits that upon
completion of investigation, charge sheet was prepared vide
memo dated 27th October, 2020 and was filed before the
competent court on 30th October, 2020, prior to disposal of
the petitioner's application for bail dated 28th October, 2020.
As such there is no infirmity in the order dated 18th
November, 2020.
Indisputably, the petitioner was remanded to
judicial custody on 30th April, 2020 and the mandatory
period of 180 days prescribed for filing of final report ended
on 27th October, 2020, excluding the date of remand and
including the date of filing of charge sheet. The charge sheet
was thus, admittedly filed on the 183rd day.
A perusal of the order dated 28th October, 2020
would reveal that consideration of the petitioner's prayer for
statutory bail was mechanically deferred and the subsequent
submission of the charge sheet could not have been a
ground towards denial of statutory bail to the petitioner.
The right to statutory bail is not a mere statutory
right but is part of the procedure established by law under
Article 21 of the Constitution of India. [See the judgments
delivered in the cases of M Ravindran versus Intelligence
Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence reported in 2020 O
Supreme (SC) 627 and Bikramjit Singh VS State of Punjab,
reported in 2020 O Supreme (SC) 586]
Applying such proposition of law to the facts of this
case, we are of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to
statutory bail.
Accordingly, the petitioner, namely, Samim Sk., be
released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/-
(Rupees Ten Thousand only), with two sureties of the like
amount, one of whom must be local, to the satisfaction of the
Learned Judge, Special 3rd Court, Malda under the N. D. P.
S. Act, subject to further condition that the petitioner shall
not leave the jurisdiction of Baishnabnagar Police Station
without the leave of the trial court and shall attend the trial
court on every date of hearing.
The application being CRM 279 of 2021, is
disposed of.
(Tirthankar Ghosh, J.) (Tapabrata Chakraborty, J.)
