SITA RAI Vs. STATE OF SIKKIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner, aged about 29 years, was arrested by the Singtam Police Station, in connection with FIR No.50/2020, dated 15-10-2020, at around 02.35 a.m., under Section 7(a)(b) and 14 of the Sikkim Anti Drugs Act, 2006 (for short, 'SADA, 2006') read with Section 9(1)(b) of the Sikkim Anti Drugs (Amendment) Act, 2017, Sections 22/27 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, 'NDPS Act') and Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, from Dhamala Colony, Singtam, East Sikkim. The controlled substances allegedly seized at around 01.40 a.m. from the rented premises of the Petitioner which she shares with her husband and twelve year old son, comprised of 614 files of Spasmo-Proxyvon Plus capsules.

(2.) Learned Counsel advancing his arguments for the Petitioner drew the attention of this Court to the FIR lodged and submitted that although the name of the Petitioner finds place in the FIR there is in fact no specific allegation against her. She is neither alleged to be a consumer of controlled substances nor is she said to be a peddler of controlled substances. That, Kiran Darjee, whose name appears in the FIR is her husband, a truck driver who is accused of being a seller of controlled substances. For her part she is unaware of the activities of her husband pertaining to sale of controlled substances neither was she aware that controlled substances recovered from beneath her bed had been kept there as the articles were concealed with a cloth. That, she is a house wife and a mother of a twelve year old child and is not involved in any offence either under the SADA or the NDPS Act, besides which she has no criminal antecedents. It was also urged by Learned Counsel that there was no compliance of Section 21 of the SADA, 2006, when the search and seizure was carried out by the Investigating Officer (I.O.) apart from which the seizure memo reveals that although the seizures were made on 15-10-2020 the I.O. they were forwarded to the RFSL for forensic examination only on 22-10-2020, raising doubts about the authenticity of the seizure of the controlled substances. That, in consideration of the facts and circumstances canvassed the Petitioner deserves to be released on bail.

(3.) Per contra, Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor while objecting to the Petition contended that the controlled substances seized were in commercial quantity and recovered from beneath the bed of the Petitioner. That, it is an appalling contention that she could be unaware of the articles which were placed below her bed when she shares the rented premises with her husband. That, she is complicit with her husband in selling the controlled substances to the youth in Singtam town and, therefore, deserves no consideration at this stage.