Bikash Singh @ Vikash Kumar Singh vs The Narcotics Control Bureau
2022 Latest Caselaw 561 Cal

                                       1


                   IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION
                           APPELLATE SIDE

Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Debangsu Basak
              And
The Hon'ble Justice Bibhas Ranjan De


                             CRM 2195 of 2021

                   Bikash Singh @ Vikash Kumar Singh
                                   VS.
             The Narcotics Control Bureau, Kolkata Zonal Unit


For the petitioner : Mr. Debajyoti Deb
                     Mr. Abhisek Banerjee,
                     Ms. Shanchita Banerjee,
                     Mr. Sanjoy Kumar Das, Advocates


For the NCB          : Mr. Y. J. Dastoor, Ld. ASG
                       Ms. Joyeeta Dhar, Advocates

Heard on             : February 15, 2022

Judgment on          : February 15, 2022


DEBANGSU BASAK, J.:-

      1.

Petitioner seeks bail in connection with T.R. No. 07 of 2020 arising

out of NCB crime No. 06/NCB/KOL/2020 corresponding to

RPF/PST/HWN'S G.D. No. 70 dated 05.02.2020 under Sections 20(b)(ii)

(c)/29/35 read with section 8(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic

Substances Act.

2. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the

petitioner is in custody for 529 days. The police filed charge sheet. The

petitioner is sought to be proceeded against on the basis of the

statements of the co-accused which is of no evidentiary value in the eye

of law. He submits that no narcotic was seized from the possession of the

petitioner. The statements of the co-accused made while in custody and

call records details, if there be any, are not pieces of evidence. In support

of his contention he relies upon the order of the co-ordinate Bench dated

December 21, 2020 in CRM 8145 of 2020 (In the mater of:- Abdul

Malique & Ors.) and (2009) 12 SCC 161 (Union of India vs.

Balmukund & Ors.). He refers to the order dated September 22, 2021

passed in CRM 5710 of 2021 ( In the matter of:- Akhilesh Tiwari)

where despite the call record details bail was granted to an accused

involved in a NDPS case.

3. Learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the Narcotic

Control Bureau submits that, there are call record details implicating the

petitioner with those of the co-accused who are in custody. Commercial

quantity of narcotic was seized from the co-accused in custody. The

Narcotic Control Bureau also seized train tickets from the co-accused

showing the destination as that of the hometown of the petitioner.

According to him, there are nexus between the petitioner and the co-

accused.

4. When a person seeks bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act

1985, he is required to overcome the restrictions under Section 37 of the

NDPS Act, 1985. In Abdul Malique (supra), the co-ordinate Bench after

taking note of Tofan Singh vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in 2020

SCC Online SC 882, allowed the bail of the accused therein. The factual

scenario in the present case is different.

5. In Akhilesh Tiwari (supra), the Division Bench noted that there

was an order of the jurisdictional Court with regard to the call detail

recording and, therefore, proceeded to grant bail to the petitioner therein.

Again, the factual scenario is different in the present case.

6. In Balmukund (supra) is a criminal appeal on conclusion of trial.

It revolves around Sections 67 of the Act of 1985. Again, the factual

scenario is different in the present case.

7. In the facts of the present case, there are call record details

between the petitioner and the co-accused who was apprehended with

commercial quantity of narcotic. There are other incriminating evidence

such as train ticket of the co-accused showing the destination station as

that of the hometown of the petitioner.

8. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the prosecution is

not proceeding against the petitioner wholly on the basis of the

statements of the co-accused made while in custody. Credence should

also be placed on the call record details and the conduct of the co-

accused as noted above in the facts of the present case.

9. In such circumstances, we are of the view that the petitioner is

unable to overcome the restrictions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act,

1985.

10. Consequently, we are unable to grant bail to the petitioner.

11. Prayer for bail is rejected. CRM 2195 of 2021 is, accordingly,

dismissed.

(Debangsu Basak,J.)

12. I agree.

(Bibhas Ranjan De, J.)