PRADIP PODDER Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This bail application under Sec. 483 of BNSS is filed for granting bail to the accused person in custody in connection with Sabroom PS Case No.2025 SBM 024 for the offence punishable under Ss. 20(b)(ii)(c)/25/29 of NDPS Act, 1985.

(2.) Heard Learned Counsel Mr. A. T. Paul appearing on behalf of the accused in custody and also heard Learned P.P. Mr. R. Datta appearing on behalf of the State. 2 We have received the record from the Learned Trial Court and by this time Learned P.P. has produced the Case Diary. 4 At the time of hearing Learned Counsel appearing for the accused in custody first of all drawn the contents of the FIR that as per printed form of the FIR the occurrence of offence took place on 19/7/2025 at 13.00 hours and information received at P.S. on 19/7/2025 at 14.55 hours and as per FIR the patrolling party conducted raid at about 2230 hours and further as per arrest memo the accused in custody was arrested on 19/7/2025 at 1415 hours. Referring the same Learned Counsel appearing for the accused in custody drawn the attention of the Court that how before the registration of the case and information received at P.S. the accused was arrested in connection with this case, this was totally surprising and prosecution in this case could not explain anything in this regard. Furthermore nothing was seized from the possession of the accused and he was not owner or driver of the vehicle even he was also not the passenger of that vehicle. Rather he was simply a passer-by and was intoxicated for which he was taken into custody and has been falsely implicated in this case. So Learned Counsel on conclusion of his argument urged for releasing the accused on bail in any condition. 5 On the other hand, Learned P.P. Mr. R. Datta appearing on behalf of the State strongly objected the submission made by Learned Counsel appearing for the accused in custody and submitted that in this case no investigation was conducted by the police initially rather right from the seizure/detention everything was made by BSF Personnel. In this regard he drawn the attention of the Court the relevant portion of the part of the FIR laid by the BSF Personnel and submitted that on the basis of the FIR laid by Sanjay Kumar Singh of 114 Bn BSF B Coy Bop, Chhotakhil this present case has been registered and the accused was taken into custody and the contraband item was of commercial quantity so the story projected by Learned Counsel appearing for the applicant cannot be believed. 6 Learned P.P. further submitted that even if we assume that nothing was directly found or seized from the possession of the accused still in view of the observation made by the Hon ble Apex Court there is no scope to grant bail to the accused and in this case the rigour of provision of Sec. -37 of the NDPS Act would strictly apply and he urged for dismissal of the bail application. Reference was made by him upon one citation of the Hon ble Apex Court in Union of India vs. Rattan Mallik alias Habul reported in (2009) 2 SCC 624 wherein in para Nos.15 and 16 Hon ble the Apex Court observed as under: