Tripura HC Grants Bail to Accused Under NDPS Act Due to Procedural Irregularities and Lack of Prima Facie Case

Must Read

“Consensual Affair” Cannot Be Defence Against the Charge of Kidnapping of the Minor, Sentence Reduced in View of Age Difference: Supreme Court

This Case concerns the appeal against the conviction under the charges of kidnapping and discussed whether the punishment was...

Delhi HC to Municipal Corp: Paucity of Funds Not an Excuse for Non-Payment of Salaries and Pensions

The Delhi High Court ruled that the paucity of funds cannot be an excuse and pulled up municipal corporations for not paying salaries and pensions to their employees as the right to receive payment is a fundamental right guaranteed in our constitution.

US Supreme Court Reinstates Restriction on Abortion Pills

The Supreme Court of the United States granted the Trump administration’s request to reinstate federal rules requiring women to...

Supreme Court Upheld “Environmental Rule of Law” in NGT Decision to Demolish Illegal Hotel on Forest Land

This case concerns the dispute relating to the additional construction of hotel-cum-restaurant structure in the Bus Stand Complex along...

UK Supreme Court Rules in Favour of Policyholders in the COVID-19 Business Interruption Case

The United Kingdom’s Supreme Court finally concluded the long-awaited COVID-19 business interruption case brought by the Financial Conduct Authority...

Kerala High Court Disposes of Writ Petition on Grounds That Reliefs Sought Are Already in Process of Being Granted, Directs State to Complete the...

Excerpt A single-judge bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice Shircy V. gave orders on the writ petition filed by the Petitioner....

Follow us

In the case of Smt. Rumpa Debnath (Bhowmik) vs. The State of Tripura B.A. No. 71 of 2020, Hon’ble Justice Arindam Lodh decided on whether to grant bail to an accused against whom the rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act could not be proved.

Facts of the Case 

The accused was arrested on 24th January. The Duty Officer received information that huge quantity drugs (heroin) were illegally stored and immediately informed the higher authorities, conducted a raid and recovered drugs. 2 persons were arrested. One of them was not the possessor of the house but just visited the house for some person. Charges were framed under Sec22(b)/25 of the NDPS Act against both the accused. A bail petition was first filed by the wife of the visitor accused after the framing of charges but it was rejected. After the commencement of trial, the petitioner has approached the court again for bail.

Arguments 

Bail petitioners argue that the accused has been charged under Sec22(b) and Sec 25 which do not have the rigour of Sec37 of the NDPS Act and the person has been in jail for over 1 year and 6months, with no progress of the trial to be seen in near future. Therefore the accused is entitled to be released on bail. Further, nothing was seized from the accused who was just a visitor and he had gone to the house of the drug possessor to give tuition to the children in the home which is when the police conducted the raid. The mandatory provision of Sec 42 and 52 of the NDPS Act in case of search and seizure has been violated.

The State-Respondent argued that the bail petition is devoid of any merit. The procedure under the Act was followed throughout the course of the investigation. All necessary authorizations and signatures had been obtained during the process of search and seizure. The public prosecutor also urged that filing of a successive bail application is not permissible unless there is a change in circumstances as per the case of Haricharan Biswas v. State Tripura, reported in (2018) 2 TLR 733.

Court’s observation and decision

The Court deduced two issues to be answered from the arguments of both sides. Firstly, whether bail can be provided for an offence under the NDPS Act when procedural irregularities are alleged. Secondly, whether the accused can be released on bail if the offence does not suffer the rigour of Sec 37 of the NDPS Act.

The court observed that under the Haricharan Biswas case, it was affirmed that under Sec 37 NDPS Act unless there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accused is not guilty on the basis of the material placed before it, bail cannot be granted owing to the serious nature of the charges. The charge framed by Special Judge after considering the materials manifests that the petitioner-accused has not committed any offence under Sec 19, 24, 27A and also for an offence involving commercial quantity and therefore Sec 37 is not applicable. Therefore the bail application must be judged solely on the basis of Chapter 33 of CrPC. Court noted that the accused has been in jail for over 1.5 yr and the earlier bail application was filed after framing of charge and the current application is after the commencement of trial and examination of four witnesses, hence there is a change in circumstances. 

Having regard to these findings and also the pandemic situation, judging the application based on Chapter 33 of CrPC, the accused shall be released on bail provided he shall not leave the jurisdiction of the learned Special judge without permission, shall not evade trial or influence evidence and has to appear before it on dates fixed by the trial court.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgments of the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

“Consensual Affair” Cannot Be Defence Against the Charge of Kidnapping of the Minor, Sentence Reduced in View of Age Difference: Supreme Court

This Case concerns the appeal against the conviction under the charges of kidnapping and discussed whether the punishment was to be enhanced or not.   Brief...

Delhi HC to Municipal Corp: Paucity of Funds Not an Excuse for Non-Payment of Salaries and Pensions

The Delhi High Court ruled that the paucity of funds cannot be an excuse and pulled up municipal corporations for not paying salaries and pensions to their employees as the right to receive payment is a fundamental right guaranteed in our constitution.

US Supreme Court Reinstates Restriction on Abortion Pills

The Supreme Court of the United States granted the Trump administration’s request to reinstate federal rules requiring women to make in-person visits to hospitals...

Supreme Court Upheld “Environmental Rule of Law” in NGT Decision to Demolish Illegal Hotel on Forest Land

This case concerns the dispute relating to the additional construction of hotel-cum-restaurant structure in the Bus Stand Complex along with a bus stand and...

UK Supreme Court Rules in Favour of Policyholders in the COVID-19 Business Interruption Case

The United Kingdom’s Supreme Court finally concluded the long-awaited COVID-19 business interruption case brought by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and the Hiscox Action...

Kerala High Court Disposes of Writ Petition on Grounds That Reliefs Sought Are Already in Process of Being Granted, Directs State to Complete the...

Excerpt A single-judge bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice Shircy V. gave orders on the writ petition filed by the Petitioner. This writ is filed by...

Supreme Court Directs Government To Provide Free Education To Minor Children of Rape Victims

The Deputy Commissioner of Ranchi was directed by the Supreme Court on Wednesday to make sure that minor children of rape victims are ensured free education till they attain the age of 14 years. The Court made the observation while hearing a plea filed by a woman who claimed that she belonged to the SC/ST group from Jharkhand. She was forced by a man after which her father lodged a complaint.

Aadhar Review Plea Rejected in a 4:1 Verdict by Supreme Court

The petition seeking the re-examination of the 2018 Aadhar Verdict which declares the Aadhar act constitutional and valid was dismissed by a 5-judge bench in a 4:1 verdict. In January the petitions were considered by a bench of Justices A M Khanwilkar, D Y Chandrachud, S Abdul Nazeer, Ashok Bhushan, and B R Gavai in the chamber and the order was up on the website on Wednesday.

New Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) Amendments Are Valid Says Supreme Court

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court upheld the amendments in the insolvency and bankruptcy code which makes it mandatory for a minimum of 100 or 10% of home buyers of a project to initiate insolvency proceedings against a builder for not delivering flats or commercial shops on time.

[HUL – Sebamed Ad War] Bombay High Court Passed Injunction; Permits Sebamed Ad Against HUL’s Dove

The ad war between the German personal care brand Sebamed and the consumer goods giant Hindustan Unilever Ltd (HUL) has come to an end. On January 19th, Bombay High Court passed an injunction order permitting the Sebamed ad against Hindustan Unilever’s Dove without any changes. It was observed that Sebamed ads were backed with evidence-based data. However, Sebamed was ordered to put an end to its advertisement that compared HUL soap bars Lux, Pears, and Santoor with Rin and detergent category.

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -