Tripura High Court
Sri Pidul Das vs The State Of Tripura on 8 October, 2021
Page 1 of 4
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
B.A No.77 of 2021
Sri Pidul Das
............... Petitioner(s).
Vs.
The State of Tripura.
............... Respondent(s).
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. B. Deb, Advocate.
For Respondent(s): Mr. Ratan Datta, Public Prosecutor.
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. G. CHATTOPADHYAY
ORDER
08/10/2021
This application under Section 439 Cr. P. C has been filed for
granting bail to Pidul Das who is an FIR named accused in Khowai P.S
Case No.2021/KHW/061 under Sections 22(c), 22(b), 27 and 29 of
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. Accused has
been undergoing imprisonment since his arrest on 30.06.2021 i.e. for
more than 100 days.
[2] Case against the accused petitioner is that 20.80 gm heroin
and 990 Yaba tablets were recovered from the house of Apajit Roy by
police during a raid in the house on 17.06.2021 at 10.30 a.m.
Immediately after raid, recovery and seizure of the contraband, the
complainant police officer lodged a suo motu complaint with the Officer-
in-Charge of Khowai police station on the basis of which a case was
registered and investigation was taken up.
[3] In the course of investigation, the present petitioner was
arrested by police and he was taken into custody. Several bail
applications for him was filed in the trial court which were rejected.
Petitioner has therefore, approached this Court by filing this petition
under Section 439 Cr. P. C.
[4] Heard Mr. B. Deb, learned advocate appearing for the
petitioner who contends that there is no iota of evidence against the
petitioner supporting his arrest and detention in custody. Counsel
submits that nothing was seized from the possession of the accused.
According to Mr. B. Deb, learned counsel, no person can be detained in
custody simply on the basis of statements of witnesses unacquinted with
the case, without verification of his antecedents and involvement in the
alleged crime. Counsel has relied on various decisions of this Court.
Relying on the decision of the judgment and the order passed by this
court on 20.08.2019 in AB No. 61 of 2018 (Dhruba Manik Jamatia
Vrs. The State of Tripura) counsel submits that without any evidence
of worth, no person can be detained in custody. Learned counsel has also
relied on the decision dated 04.01.2020 of this High Court in BA
No.157/2019 wherein this Court granted bail to the accused for similar
offence after scrutinizing the entire case record and finding that no
contraband was recovered from the possession of the accused. Another
order dated 21.05.2021 in BA No.32 of 2021 passed by this Court is also
relied upon by learned counsel where the accused was granted bail
because no contraband was recovered from his possession. Counsel has
also relied on the decision dated 31.07.2018 of the Apex Court in
Criminal Appeal No.949 of 2018 (Surinder Kumar Khanna Vrs.
Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence) wherein
the Apex Court has held as under:
"14. In the present case it is accepted that apart
from the aforesaid statements of co-accused there
is no material suggesting involvement of the
appellant in the crime in question. We are thus left
with only one piece of material that is the
confessional statements of the co-accused as
stated above. On the touchstone of law laid down
by this Court such a confessional statement of a
co-accused cannot by itself be taken as a
substantive piece of evidence against another co-
accused and can at best be used or utilized in order
to lend assurance to the Court. In the absence of
any substantive evidence it would be inappropriate
to base the conviction of the appellant purely on
the statements of co-accused. The appellant is
therefore entitled to be acquitted of the charges
leveled against him. We, therefore, accept this
appeal, set aside the orders of conviction and
sentence For example: State vs. Nalini, (1999) 5
SCC 253, paras 424 and 704 and acquit the
appellant. The appellant shall be released forthwith
unless his custody is required in connection with
any other offence."
[5] Counsel submits that apart from the statement of the co-
accused and some other witnesses, there is no other material against the
petitioner in support of the charge against him. Learned counsel
therefore, urges the Court to release the accused on bail in the light of
the said judgment of the Apex Court.
[6] Mr. Ratan Datta, learned Public Prosecutor while opposing
the bail application has referred to the materials available against the
accused in the case diary. With regard to the antecedents of the accused
learned Public Prosecutor submits that accused is a habitual offender
against whom another case vide Khowai P.S Case No. 2020 KHW/038
dated 25/2/2020 under Section 21(b) for the similar offence is pending.
Learned Public Prosecutor refers to the statements of the neighbours of
the accused who has stated that accused along with his father-in-law is
engaged in drug paddling over a long period of time. Counsel also
submits that quantity of contraband seized from the possession of his
father-in-law is of commercial quantity. Since there are prima facie
materials against the accused with regard to his involvement in the
offence, learned P.P. submits that the restrictions provided under Section
37 NDPS Act will apply in this case and under no circumstance, the
accused can be enlarged on bail. Counsel therefore, urges the court to
reject the bail application.
[7] Perused the entire case diary, particularly the statements of
the witnesses who have supported the charge against the accused. After
seizure, the contraband was sent State Forensic Science Laboratory who
has confirmed in their report dated 26.07.2021 that the contraband is
positive for the presence of heroin. A good prima facie case is thus made
out against the accused.
[8] In view of the antecedent of the accused and the materials
available against him, this Court is of the view that he should not be
granted bail at this stage. Accordingly, his bail application stands
rejected. Return the Case Diary.
JUDGE
Dipankar
