Subrata Karmakar vs The State Of Assam
2021 Latest Caselaw 470 Gua

                                                                                            Page No.# 1/2

GAHC010180322020




                                 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
   (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                                   Case No. : Bail Appln./2910/2020

              SUBRATA KARMAKAR
              S/O SRI MRITYONJOY KARMAKAR, R/O LANKA TOWN, WARD NO. 10, P.S.-
              LANKA, DIST-HOJAI, ASSAM

              VERSUS

              THE STATE OF ASSAM
              REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R GOSWAMI
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM

                                     BEFORE
                    HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HITESH KUMAR SARMA

                                                ORDER

10-02-2021

This is an application made under Section 439 Cr.P.C., seeking bail by the accused-petitioner, namely, Subrata Karmakar, in connection with Lanka Police Station Case No. 569 of 2020, registered under Section 22(C) of the NDPS Act.

Heard Mr. R. Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. N.K. Kalita, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the state respondent.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the order, dated 04-08-2017, passed in Criminal Petition No. 312/2017, whereby the investigation of the case involved in the said criminal petition was set aside being abuse of the process of law, taking into account the order, dated 01-12-2016, passed in WP(C) No. 2348/2016, rendered by Hon'ble Delhi High Court, quoting the notification No. 909(E), dated 10-03- 2016, issued by the Central Government.

Mr. Kalita, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has referred to a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Page No.# 2/2

the case of Union of India vs. Pfizer Limited, reported in (2018) 2 SCC 39 and has submitted that the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, referred to above, has been set aside by the said judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

That being so, the argument on this count by the learned counsel for the petitioner has no foundation as of now.

That apart, it has been noticed that in the instant case, 192 bottles, 100ML Cholopheramine Maleate and Codeine Phosphate Syrup and Spescore Van Plus 11 (eleven) scripts, each scripts 24 capsules, were recovered from the possession of the accused persons. From such seizure, it appears that apart from Cholopheramine Maleate and Codeine Phosphate Syrup, some other articles, which are not covered by the notification No. 909(E), referred to above, were seized.

This fact of seizure has been noted here in view of the fact that even if the judgment of the Delhi High Court and of this Court, referred to at Annexure-5, are to be accepted as still prevailing, then also there are some other contraband, which are not included in the notification. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner has sought for some time to examine the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore, list the matter on 10-03-2021. In the meantime, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor shall also collect the FSL report.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant