Tripura High Court

Smt. Chinta Rani Jamatia vs The State Of Tripura Represented ... on 10 November, 2021

                    HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                          AGARTALA
                           BA 83 of 2021
SMT. CHINTA RANI JAMATIA W/o Shri Amulya Jamatia,
Resident of Hadra, PS Kakrabon, District- Gomati Tripura
                                                -----Petitioner(s)
on behalf of Shri Naithak Jamatia
                                                 ------Accused(s)

                              Versus

THE STATE OF TRIPURA represented by the Ld. PP, High Court
of Tripura, Agartala.
                                       -----Respondent(s)

                           BEFORE

        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.CHATTOPADHYAY

For Petitioner(s)   :Mr. S.Lodh, Adv.

For Respondent(s) :Mr. Ratan Datta, PP.

                            ORDER

10.11.2021 [1] This is an application for granting bail to accused

Naithak Jamatia who has been undergoing imprisonment since his

arrest on 10.10.2021 in Mungiakami P.S. case No. 2021/MGK/032

which has been registered under Sections 20(b)(ii)&(C), 25, and 29

NDPS Act 1985.

[2] The factual background of the case is as under:

Sri Ranjit Das, SI of Police of Mungiakami police

station lodged a suo moto complaint with the officer in charge of

Mungiakami police station alleging, inter alia, that on 9.10.2021 he

along with his accompanying police staff were discharging special

duty at Salbagan at around 10.15 A.M when they intercepted a 12

wheeler truck bearing registration No.AS-19-C-3035 on its way

from Teliamura to Ambassa. The police team led by SDPO,

Teliamura detained the vehicle and carried out search inside the

driver's cabin. During search, they recovered dried 'gaja' in several

packets concealed in a chamber specially built for this purpose

inside the driver's cabin. Accordingly they detained the driver

along with his vehicle for interrogation. The driver and his

associates who were travelling in the truck were thoroughly

interrogated and 130 kg dried 'gaja' in 13 packets were recovered

and seized. In the course of interrogation, a phone call came to the

cell phone of the accused driver namely Rupam Chakma from one

Papai Das who was stated to be the actual owner of the contraband.

The driver told the interrogating police officer that said Papai Das

offered Rs.1 lakh to police through him for getting the vehicle and

the seized contraband released. The complainant police officer

stated in his FIR that said Papai Das after making the phone call

sent one Ashish Nag to the police station with cash of Rs.1 lakh for

release of the offending vehicle and the contraband. As soon as he

came, the complainant also arrested him along with the cash. On

BA83 of 2021

interrogation, said Ashish Nag confessed his guilt and told that

Papai Das and some other persons were their collaborators in drug

peddling. After seizure of the vehicle and the contraband, the

complainant lodged the said FIR.

[3] Based on his FIR, Mungiakami P.S. case

No.2021MGK 032 under Sections 20(b)(ii)and(C) and 29 NDPS

Act was registered and the case was taken up for investigation.

[4] In the course of investigation, police interrogated the

arrested accused persons and recorded their statements and the

statements of some of the neighbours of the petitioner and on the

basis of their statements, arrested the present accused petitioner on

10.10.2021. He has been undergoing imprisonment since then.

[5] Heard Mr.S.Lodh learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner as well as Mr.Ratan Datta, learned PP representing the

State respondent.

[6] Counsel of the petitioner contends that the accused

was arrested by police merely on suspicion. There is no genuine

ground for his arrest and detention. Counsel submits that no

contraband was recovered from the possession of the accused

merely on the basis of the statements of some of the arrested

BA83 of 2021

accused of this case, the petitioner has been arrested and detained in

custody for about 01 month which is completely illegal. It is also

contended by Mr.Lodh, learned counsel that before being entangled

in the present case, accused was also falsely implicated in Kakraban

P.S case No.75 of 2018 registered for similar offence in which he

was granted bail on the ground of inadequacy of materials against

him. Thereafter, he was implicated in Manu P.S. case No.2021

MNU/004 for similar offence. In the said case also court released

the accused on bail since there was no material against him. After

investigation of the case, charge sheet was submitted against the

other accused persons. But the petitioner was not sent up for trial

for lack of evidence. Then the third case was registered against him

which was Bishalgarh P.S. case No.2021 BLG 059 on similar

charges. In that case also accused secured his release on bail

because there was no material against him justifying his detention

in custody. Counsel submits that this is the fourth case against the

petitioner. It is contended by learned counsel of the petitioner that

filing of cases one after another against the petitioner demonstrates

the malice on the part of the prosecution agency against the present

petitioner. According to learned counsel, since there is no

incriminating material against him, he deserves release on bail on

any condition.

BA83 of 2021

[7] Mr.Ratan Datta, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the

bail application mainly on the ground that during interrogation by

the investigating agency, all the arrested accused have named the

petitioner as one of their collaborators. Referring to the statement of

one of the neighbours of the petitioner, learned PP submits that the

witness has categorically stated in his police statement recorded

under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that the petitioner was indulging in

smuggling of narcotic drugs over a quite long period of time.

Counsel submits that statements of co-accused during police

interrogation cannot be brushed aside particularly in NDPS cases.

Relying on a decision of the Aallahabad High Court in Union of

India vs. Altaf Hussain alias Jumai and Anr. reported in 1998

Cri LJ 2782, learned PP submits that the NDPS Act is a special

Act and the statements recorded by the authorities of the Narcotic

Department during investigation of a case under the said Act cannot

be said to be inadmissible in evidence. Counsel has relied on

paragraph 16 of the judgment wherein the Allahabad High Court

has held as under:

"16. The N.D.P.S. Act is a special Act and authorities of the Narcotics Bureau/Department cannot be equated with the Police Officers. The statements recorded by the authorities of the Narcotics Department cannot be said to be inadmissible in evidence. Learned counsel for the respondents failed to point out any provision on which basis it can be said that the statements of the accused recorded by these authorities during the course of investigating of the present case cannot be read in evidence. The

BA83 of 2021

only submission made by the learned counsel for the respondents is that the statements recorded by the authorities of the complainant Bureau is hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act. But I am unable to accept this contention of the learned counsel for the respondents. In the case cited as Kirpal Mohan Virmani v. State 1990 SCC (Cri) 331 : (AIR 1991 SC 45) the Hon'ble Apex Court clearly took a view that the Officers of the Revenue Intelligence who have been invested with powers of an Officer-in- Charge of a Police Station under Section 52 of the Act are not "Police Officers" within the meaning of Section 25 of the Evidence Act. In another case cited as Naresh J. Sukhawani v. Union of India 1966 SCC (Cri) 76 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has again held that "the statement made before the Customs Officials is not a statement recorded under Section 161 of the Criminal Proceedure Code 1973. Therefore, it is material piece of evidence collectd by Customs Officials under Section 108 of the Customs Act". It has also been held that the statement made by the one co- accused is a substantive piece of evidence against another person. The High Court in a case cited as R.N. Kaker v. Shabir Fidahussain reported in 1991 (2) EFR 583 took a view that the statement made before the authorities of the Narcotics Department is admissible in evidence is not hit either by Section 25 of the Evidence Act or by Section 161, Cr.P.C. In fact, if the accused gives a statement then, the same is recorded under Secion 67 of the Act and the said statement can be used as prima facie evidence saying that he is very much involved in the offence. However, no doubt, what will be the evidentiary value and whether the accused persons can be convicted on the basis of said confession or not will be looked into in the trial but on the basis of the statement at least a prima facie case is made out against the accused for framing of the charges. ........................................."

[8] Counsel therefore, urges the court to reject the bail

application of the petitioner relying on the statements of the co-

accused and the neighbours of the petitioner as well as the other

incriminating materials available on record against him. Counsel

submits that the contraband seized in this case is of commercial

quantity and the investigation is in progress. Release of the accused

on bail at this stage is likely to impede a fair investigation of the

case. Counsel therefore, urges the court for rejecting the bail

application.

BA83 of 2021

[9] Perused the case diary and considered the submissions

made at the bar. It is true that serious charges have been brought