SERINA BIBI Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein, who is a lady accused, was arrested on 4/2/2025 in connection with NDPS Case No. 11 of 2025 and since then she is in custody and therefore prays for bail on any terms and condition.

(2.) Prosecution case in a nutshell is that on the basis of a credible source information that one woman will be coming at Khodar bazar Mondal Para to deal with huge quantity of heroin for money, the complainant along with other police personnel Baruipur Police Station had been to the spot near Ashma Hotel and met the source at 11.25 hrs. On the same day at about16.25 hrs the complainant noticed a lady with a Nylon bag in hand was coming and on being identified by the source, the complainant and his team followed her. After a while they noticed that the lady entered inside a house and then the complainant and his team entered the house and detained the lady and another person, when the two detainees admitted that they have kept heroin inside the house. Then one Abdus Samad Mollah arrived and said it was his house and he became an independent witness. The said two detainees were served notices under Sec. 50 NDPS Act. From the said house 909 gms. heroin like substance and Rs.26.43 lakhs was recovered.

(3.) Mr. Sanjay Banerjee ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the State strongly opposed the bail prayer contending that the search cum seizure process was done in between 16.50 hrs to 20.25 hrs on 4/2/2025. He further submits that entire process of search and seizure was videographed. Moreover, during the entire process LC/3437 Barnali Dutta of Baruipur P.S. was present with the petitioner and no male police personnel interacted with her. Whatever questioning was done to her was done by said lady constable and thereafter she was arrested after performing all legal formalities regarding arrest and seizure, the case was started. The petitioner Serina Bibi was found in joint possession 909 gms of heroin and Rs.26,43,600.00 cash inside the premises owned by her son in law. Relying upon the judgment reported in (1994) 3 SCC 440 petitioners contended that imposition of restraint in the present case by physical act or apprehension of the petitioner completes the process of arrest.