Calcutta High Court: In a petition filed by the petitioner under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) seeking grant of bail in connection with an alleged offence involving recovery of contraband substance, primarily on the grounds that there was no direct nexus between the petitioner and the alleged offence, Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J., held that the rigours of Section 37 were not prima facie attracted and granted bail to the petitioner subject to conditions.
Facts of the case
The petitioner was apprehended in connection with an NDPS offence wherein contraband material was recovered from a co-passenger in a vehicle driven by the petitioner. As per the seizure list, the only article recovered from the petitioner was a mobile phone, and no contraband substance was found on his person. The prosecution alleged that since the petitioner was driving the vehicle, he was in constructive possession of the contraband.
The petitioner had been in custody for approximately 196 days, had no prior criminal antecedents, and despite the filing of the charge-sheet, none of the 29 prosecution witnesses had been examined, raising concerns about delay in trial.
Analysis and Held
The Court observed that none of the seized contraband was recovered from the petitioner, and his alleged involvement was confined to driving the vehicle. While acknowledging that “possession” under the NDPS Act may extend beyond physical possession, the Court held that there must be prima facie material indicating control or conscious possession of the contraband.
Mere driving of a vehicle from which a contraband is recovered from another person does not automatically establish such control or constructive possession. The Court found no material to directly connect the petitioner with the alleged offence at this stage.
Further, the Court noted the absence of criminal antecedents, the prolonged period of custody, and the lack of progress in trial. It held that Section 37, NDPS Act cannot be applied in isolation and, in the absence of prima facie evidence, the benefit of doubt must favour the accused.
Decision
Accordingly, the Court was satisfied that there were reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner was not guilty and was unlikely to commit any offence while on bail. Thus, the bail was granted, subject to conditions including furnishing bond of Rs. 10, 000 with two sureties of like amount each, one of whom must be local, subject to the satisfaction to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Port Blair; territorial restrictions; periodic reporting to the police station; and non-interference with witnesses or evidence.
[Saw Herald v. State of W.B., CRM(NDPS)/5/2026, decided on 24-4-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Mr. Manas Ajai Sonkar Mr. Sumit Kumar Sakthi Mr. Manojit Baraik for the petitioner
Mr. Sumit Kumar Karmakar for the State