SOMNATH PAL Vs. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners, who were arrested by the respondent in connection with the offences punishable under Sections 22, 28 & 32 read with Section 8(c) of the NDPS Act, 1985 (as amended) and Section 135 -A of the Customs Act, 1962, in C.C. No. 41 of 2013 on the file of the II Additional Judge for NDPS Act Cases at Chennai, seeks the relief of bail.

(2.) THE petitioner in Crl.O.P. No. 1674 of 2015 viz., Somnath has been arrayed as 4th accused and the petitioner in Crl.O.P. No. 2684 of 2015 viz., Ram Chander Pandit has been arrayed as the 2nd accused in this case. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows -

(3.) IT is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner in Crl.O.P. No. 1674 of 2015 viz., Shri Somnath Pal (A4) that the 2nd accused is the brother of the 1st accused and they are running a courier business in the name and style of Kamadhenu Express Couriers. The petitioner/A4 was implicated in this case only based on the confession statement of the 2nd accused. But, on a perusal of confession statement of the 2nd accused, it could be seen in the said statement that the 2nd accused had stated that a person came to book the parcel on 23.01.2013 & 29.01.2013 to his office and he informed his name as Somnath Pal. Whether the said person is the petitioner herein/A4 or some other person is highly doubtful. The learned counsel for the petitioner/A4 further submitted that the 4th accused has refused to give any statement; therefore the material available on record is not sufficient to say that the 4th accused is involved in this case. In fact, the 2nd accused had never identified the 4th accused to the effect that 4th accused was the person who came to his office to book the parcel. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner/A4 further submitted that the informant has not mentioned the name of the petitioner/A4 to the respondent -police. Further, the main accused to whom the consignment is said to have been sent viz., Shafi is still absconding. Based on the confession statement given by the co -accused alone, the petitioner (A4) was implicated in this case, without any identification. Thus, the learned counsel for the petitioner (A4) sought for grant of bail.