Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Subrata Roy & Ors vs The State Of West Bengtal on 18 February, 2022
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 (NDPS) 8 of 2022
SUBRATA ROY & ORS.
VS.
THE STATE OF WEST BENGTAL
For the petitioners: Mr. Debasis Kar,
Mr. Husen Mustafi,
Mr. Subhojit Chowdhury, Advocates
For the State : Mr. Sanjoy Bardhan,
Mr. Nirupam Dhali, Advocates
Heard on : February 18, 2022
Judgment on : February 18, 2022
DEBANGSU BASAK, J.:-
1.
Petitioners seek statutory bail in connection with Rahara Police
Station Case No. 114 of 2021 dated 24.03.2021, under Sections
20(b)/21(c) of N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 now No. as N-20/2021.
2. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that the
petitioners were arrested on March 24, 2021. According to him, the
CRM (NDPS) 8 of 2022
statutory 180 days from the date of arrest expired on September 24,
2021. He refers to the order dated September 21, 2021 of the
jurisdictional Court and submits that, the jurisdictional Court allowed
the prayer for extension of time for completion of investigation and filing
of report in final form without hearing the petitioners. No notice of such
application was given to the petitioners. No report was submitted by the
learned Public Prosecutor seeking the extension of time to submit the
final report in terms of Section 36A(4) of the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. He relies upon (2009) 17 SCC 631
[Sanjay Kumar Kedia alias Sanjay Kedia vs. Intelligence Officer,
Narcotics Control Bureau and Another], in support of his contentions.
3. Learned advocate appearing for the State submits that, the
application for extension of time was made within the statutory period
and was filed by the learned Public Prosecutor. He submits that in the
facts of the present case, the petitioners were produced on September 21,
2021 before the jurisdictional Court when the application for extension
was moved. The petitioners were, therefore, aware of the petition.
4. Sanjay Kumar Kedia (supra) is of the following view:-
"12. The maximum period of 90 days fixed
under Section 167(2) of the Code has been increased to
180 days for several categories of offences under the
Act but the proviso authorises a yet further period of
detention which may in total go up to one year,
provided the stringent conditions provided therein are
CRM (NDPS) 8 of 2022
satisfied and are complied with. The conditions
provided are:
(1) a report of the Public Prosecutor,
(2) which indicates the progress of the investigation,
and
(3) specifies the compelling reasons for seeking the
detention of the accused beyond the period of 180
days, and
(4) after notice to the accused."
5. In the facts of the present case, since the petitioners were arrested
on March 24, 2021, the period of 180 days will commence from March
25, 2021 with the date of the arrest and the date of remand being
excluded. Therefore, 180 days period expired on September 25, 2021.
On September 21, 2021 an application was filed for extension of time to
complete the investigation and file a report in the final form, at the
behest of the police. Such application was, however, filed by the learned
Public Prosecutor. There is no material as regard to suggest that the
filing was done by the learned Public Prosecutor without application of
mind.
6. On September 21, 2021 itself as the order sheet showing that all
the petitioners were produced before the jurisdictional Court. They, in
fact, prayed for bail on such date, which was refused. In such
circumstances, it cannot be said that the petitioners were not put on
notice with regard to the application for extension which was allowed on
CRM (NDPS) 8 of 2022
September 21, 2021 itself. There is no contemporaneous complaint by
the petitioners of no notice.
7. The application itself was filed by the learned Public Prosecutor
and, therefore, in the facts of the present case we are unable to hold that
the application for extension did not comply with the provisions of the
Act 36A(4) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
8. Since the prayer for bail is founded only on the provisions of 36A(4)
of the Act of 1985, we are unable to grant bail to the petitioners.
9. Prayer for bail is rejected and CRM (NDPS) 8 of 2022 is, accordingly,
dismissed.
(Debangsu Basak,J.)
I agree.
(Bibhas Ranjan De, J.)
