The State Of Tripura vs Jalil Miah
2024 Latest Caselaw 1210 Tri

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 1210 Tri
Judgement Date : 22 July, 2024

Tripura High Court

The State Of Tripura vs Jalil Miah on 22 July, 2024

Author: Arindam Lodh

Bench: Arindam Lodh

                         HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                               AGARTALA
                                BA 27 OF 2024

The State of Tripura, represented by the Secretary to the Government of
Tripura, Home Department, Agartala.
                                                               ....Applicant
                                       Vs.
   1. Jalil Miah, S/o Late Sayed Ali, resident of Barmura, Ward No.6, P.S.
      Jatrapur, District-Sepahijala Tripura.

     2. Alamgir Hossain, S/o Farid Miah, resident of Baspukur, Ward No.3,
        P.S. Jatrapur, District- Sepahijala Tripura.

     3. Sabujer Rahaman, S/o Abdul Haque, resident of Behimara, P.S.
        Sonamura, District-Sepahijala Tripura.

                                                              ...Respondents

      For the applicant (s)    : Mr. Raju Datta, P.P.

      For the respondent (s)   : Mr. R. Nath, Advocate.


                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH
22.07.2024
                                     Order

Heard Mr. Raju Datta, learned P.P. appearing for the applicant-

State. Also heard Mr. R. Nath, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-

accused.

2. This is an application filed under Section 439(2) read with

Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the applicant-State for cancellation of bail granted to

the respondents-accused by the learned Special Judge, Sepahijala District,

Sonamura vide Order dated 30.01.2024 in case no. Special (NDPS) 06 of 2024

arising out of Sonamura PS Case No. 135 of 2023 registered under Sections

21(C)/25/29 of the NDPS Act.

3. Mr. Nath, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-accused

persons has vehemently opposed the application filed by the applicant-State

for cancellation of bail of the respondents-accused. The main argument

advanced by learned counsel for the respondents-accused is that the police

authorities have mechanically registered the case with an ulterior motive

against the respondents-accused. Mr. Nath, learned counsel further submitted

that the grounds of arrest of the respondents-accused was not communicated

to the accused persons and as such, the arrest was illegal and accordingly, the

accused persons were entitled to be enlarged on bail. It is contended by Mr.

Nath, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-accused that Section 37

of the NDPS Act nowhere suggests that after filing of charge-sheet the

accused can be kept in custody, which the learned Special Judge, Sepahijala

District, Sonamura has rightly held.

4. On the other hand, Mr. Datta, learned P.P. submits that records

do not reveal anything that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the

respondents-accused is not guilty of committing the alleged offence.

5. I have considered the rival submissions advanced by learned

counsel appearing for the parties.

6. The submission of Mr. Nath, learned counsel appearing for the

respondents-accused that the learned Special Judge has rightly held that

Section 37 of the NDPS Act, clearly postulates that an accused cannot be kept

in custody after filing of charge-sheet, according to this court, has no legs to

stand and does not deserve to be considered.

7. At this juncture, it is necessary to reproduce Section 37 of the

NDPS Act, 1985, which reads as under:

"37. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable. -- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974),--

(a) every offence punishable under this Act shall be cognizable;

(b) no person accused of an offence punishable for [offences under section 19 or section 24 or section 27A and also for offences involving commercial quantity] shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless--

(i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and

(ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.

(2) The limitations on granting of bail specified in clause (b) of sub-section (1) are in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail."

8. On careful reading of the above provision, it is clear that to grant

bail to an accused arrested for alleged commission of offence under the

provisions of the NDPS Act, the Court or the Public Prosecutor must be

satisfied that there is reasonable ground to believe that the accused is not

guilty of committing the alleged offence. Moreso, learned Special Judge,

Sepahijala District, Sonamura, has not kept in mind that granting of bail to an

accused of committing offences under the penal provisions of the NDPS Act is

an exception and bail is not a rule.

9. In the case of Narcotics Control Bureau vs. Mohit Aggarwal,

reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 891, a three-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court held that-

"14. To sum up, the expression "reasonable grounds" used in clause (b) of Sub- Section (1) of Section 37 would mean credible, plausible and grounds for the Court to believe that the accused person is not guilty of the alleged offence. For arriving at any such conclusion, such facts and circumstances must exist in a case that can persuade the Court to believe that the accused person would not have committed such an offence. Dove-tailed with the aforesaid satisfaction is an additional consideration that the accused person is unlikely to commit any offence while on bail.

15. We may clarify that at the stage of examining an application for bail in the context of the Section 37 of the Act, the Court is not required to record a finding that the accused person is not guilty. The Court is also not expected to weigh the evidence for arriving at a finding as to whether the accused has committed an offence under the NDPS Act or not. The entire exercise that the Court is expected to undertake at this stage is for the limited purpose of releasing him on bail. Thus, the focus is on the availability of reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offences that he has been charged with and he is unlikely to commit an offence under the Act while on bail."

Thereafter, the Hon'ble Supreme Court at para 18 of the said

judgment held that:-

"18. In our opinion the narrow parameters of bail available under Section 37 of the Act, have not been satisfied in the facts of the instant case. At this stage, it is not safe to conclude that the respondent has successfully demonstrated that there are reasonable grounds to believe that he is not guilty of the offence alleged against him, for him to have been admitted to bail. The length of the period of his custody or the fact that the charge-sheet has been filed and the trial has commenced are by themselves not considerations that can be treated as persuasive grounds for granting relief to the respondent under Section 37 of the NDPS Act."

10. On careful consideration of the above enunciation of law, I can

easily hold that mere filing of charge-sheet is not a ground at all or has no

persuasive value to grant bail to an accused of allegedly committing offence

under the penal provisions of NDPS Act. The materials available on records

do not suggest anything that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the

accused is not guilty of committing the alleged offence under Sections

21(C)/25/29 of the NDPS Act.

11. In the light of the above discussion, the instant application for

cancellation of bail of the accused stands allowed.

The Order dated 30.01.2024 granting bail to the respondents-

accused by the learned Special Judge, Sepahijala District, Sonamura in

Special (NDPS) 06 of 2024, stands set-aside and quashed.