ROHIT TAMANG Vs. STATE OF SIKKIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner, aged about 36 years, is accused of the offence under Section 7, 9(1)(c) and 14 of the Sikkim Anti Drugs Act, 2006 (SADA, 2006) read with Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code. Jorethang PS FIR Case No.7 of 2021, dated 31-01-2021, was registered against him on the basis of a Complaint lodged by the SHO, Jorethang Police Station. The Petitioner was arrested on 17- 02-2021 and is presently in judicial custody, hence the instant Bail Petition.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Prosecution allegation is that the Petitioner was seen with the controlled substances, seized vide Annexure 6, the Property Seizure Memo, by two Police personnel on an abandoned road at 'Bharikhola', Jorethang. No photographs of the Petitioner or the controlled substances were taken by the two Police personnel to substantiate this allegation. Stones allegedly pelted at the Police personnel and the khukhuri with which the Petitioner was said to have threatened them have not been seized. Annexure 6 reveals the location from where seizure of the controlled substances were made but the Petitioner's name finds no mention therein. In such circumstances, the Petitioner cannot be foisted with the offences reflected in the FIR. The SHO had taken the witnesses along with him for the purposes of seizure of the controlled substances rendering the seizure suspicious as the witnesses could well have been tutored by the Prosecution. Two persons, namely, Sanjay Subba and Padam Bahadur Sanyasi, were found roaming at the place where the seizures were made. They were accordingly arrested and their vehicle was seized. The vehicle does not belong to the Petitioner, consequently none of the circumstances enumerated by the Prosecution connects the Petitioner to the offence. The allegation that the Petitioner was absconding is preposterous as in fact on 03-02-2021 he had taken his family and gone to Delhi. No intimation was made to the Petitioner requiring his presence before the Police either on 03-02-2021 or any other date prior in time. The Petitioner who is innocent, is a Carpenter by profession, belongs to a respectable family and has no criminal antecedents. He is the only earning member of his family comprising of his wife and minor sons aged 7 years and 18 months respectively and his incarceration would adversely affect them, besides, his sons are presently unwell and he is required to facilitate their treatment. That, the Petitioner may be enlarged on bail in consideration of the above circumstances, on any terms and conditions.

(3.) Repudiating the contention of Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, it is submitted by Learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the Petitioner was at the place of occurrence with the controlled substances from where he absconded on being seen by the two Police personnel, leaving behind the controlled substances, which were subsequently seized by the Police. The arrest of the Petitioner took place only on 17-02-2021, on account of the fact that there were three other persons involved in the offence with the Petitioner for which steps were taken simultaneously by the concerned Investigating Officer (I.O.). On 03-02-2021, on enquiry, the I.O. was informed by the Petitioner's sister that he had left for Delhi. Upon ascertaining his exact movements and location he was traced in Delhi from where he was arrested on 17-02-2021. That, the offence is grave and the controlled substances are valued at approximately Rs.22,00,000/- (Rupees twenty two lakhs) only, in the open market. That, the Learned Trial Court considering the facts and circumstances had correctly disallowed the Bail Applications of the Petitioner. That, now the Charge-Sheet has been submitted before the Learned Trial Court on 29-03-2021. The RFSL Report which was awaited has been received yesterday and shall be filed before the Learned Trial Court by tomorrow. Should the Petitioner be enlarged on bail the Prosecution apprehends that he will abscond as he is a permanent resident of West Bengal. Besides which, not only would it thwart the course of justice but enlarging him on bail would send a wrong message to society at large when he is found indulging in activities deleterious to the society.