BIKKY AGARWAL Vs. STATE OF SIKKIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner herein, aged about 22 years, was arrested on 14.12.2019 at Rangpo Check Post, East Sikkim, in connection with FIR No.43-2019, dated 14.12.2019, at 02:50 Hrs, under Sections 7(a)(b)/9/14 of the Sikkim Anti Drugs Act, 2006 (for short, "SADA, 2006"). The controlled substances were allegedly seized at 00:45 Hrs.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the Petitioner advancing his arguments, submitted that investigation in the matter is completed and Charge-Sheet has been filed before the concerned Court which however rejected the Petitioner's application for bail. The Petitioner and the Driver were the only occupants of the vehicle, the Petitioner having taken a lift in it from Siliguri. On reaching Rangpo Check Post the vehicle was stopped by the Police who conducted routine checking of the vehicle and recovered and seized controlled substances, allegedly being 30 (thirty) bottles of Rexdryl cough syrup from the boot of the vehicle. The vehicle was registered in the name of the Driver, Feroj Ansari who however, was not arrested in the instant matter and neither his role in the matter was delved into nor his vehicle seized. That, there is no proof whatsoever to establish that the controlled substances belonged to the Petitioner and no other personal belongings of the Petitioner such as clothes or Identity Cards were recovered from the vehicle to link the controlled substances and thereby the offence to the Petitioner. That, the Petitioner was arrested on the mere statement of the Driver of the vehicle sans proof whatsoever and has been falsely implicated in the case. That, the Petitioner is innocent, has no criminal antecedents and is the only earning member in his family consisting of aged parents who will be prejudiced by his incarceration. Hence, in the facts and circumstances, the Petitioner deserves to be enlarged on bail. He undertakes to abide by any stringent terms and conditions imposed, if so released. Learned Counsel placed reliance on the Orders of this Court in Bail Appln. No.02 of 2020, Rupa Gurung v. State of Sikkim dated 11.03.2020 and Bail Appln. No.03 of 2020, Dharmaan Rai v. State of Sikkim dated 26.05.2020.

(3.) Per contra, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor emphatically objected to the petition for bail and while relying on the FIR submitted that the Petitioner who was seated in the back seat of the taxi vehicle was searched on the Sub Inspector of Police (Complainant) suspecting that he could be in possession of controlled substances. Such search of the Petitioner and his belongings kept in the boot of the vehicle fructified in the recovery of 30 (thirty) bottles of Rexdryl cough syrup, Hindi newspapers, one red coloured carry bag and a black polythene. These recoveries indicate that the suspicions of the Complainant were well-founded. Inviting the attention of this Court to the statement of the Driver Feroj Ansari under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, "Cr.P.C.") learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that the Driver's statement clearly reveals that the Petitioner had kept his luggage in the boot of the vehicle and thereafter boarded the vehicle. The controlled substances were recovered from the boot and therefore unequivocally belonged to the Petitioner. The statement of the other seizure witness also lends credence to the statement of Feroj Ansari thereby establishing that the controlled substances had been brought by the Petitioner and belonged to him. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor however conceded that no other article belonging to the Petitioner was seized to establish that the controlled substances belonged to the Petitioner and none else. It was also conceded that the role of the taxi Driver was not investigated into.