ISMAIL ALI @ ASLAM & ANR. Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners undertake to affirm and stamp the petition/application as per Rules within a month of resumption of normal functioning of the Court. Subject to such undertaking, the application is taken up for hearing through video conference. Learned advocate for the petitioners submits that on false implication they have been arrested by the police authority. Learned advocate appearing for the State submits that these petitioners were arrested on the basis of the statement of the co- accused namely, Naresh Pramanik.

(2.) On perusal of the memo of evidence, it does not transpire that the contraband were seized from the possession of these petitioners. On the contrary, it is specifically mentioned that Phensedyl bottles were seized from the custody of two other persons.

(3.) Learned advocate for the State, however, handed over to us the copy of the memo of evidence. The same is taken on record. We are not satisfied about the complicity against the petitioners in this case and we are not convinced that further custodial interrogation of these petitioners are necessary who are in custody for last 180 days.