Sabir Ali Mondal vs. The State Of West Bengal

ITEM NO.7 COURT NO.6 SECTION II-B

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) Diary No(s).20289/2023

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 25-11-2022 in CRM (NDPS) No.1389/2022 passed by the High Court At Calcutta)

SABIR ALI MONDAL Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL Respondent(s)

(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.103404/2023-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.103407/2023-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT)

Date : 29-05-2023 This matter was called on for hearing today.

• CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPANKAR DATTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ MITHAL
• For Petitioner(s) Mr. Anup Kumar, AOR Mrs. Neha Jaiswal, Adv. Mr. Shivam Kumar, Adv. Ms. Shruti Singh, Adv. Mr. Shubham Rajhans, Adv.

For Respondent(s)

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R

1. Delay condoned.

2. The petitioner, who is facing a charge under Section 21(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, 'NDPS Act'), is in custody since 27.07.2021. His application for bail has been rejected by the impugned order of the Calcutta High Court.

3. The High Court has referred to Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which restricts the Court's power to grant bail unless the conditions ordained therein are fulfilled. The Court was of the view, having regard to the fact that contraband substance was recovered from the petitioner, that the statutory restriction of Section 37 is attracted and that it was not a fit and proper case for grant of bail. While so rejecting the application, the Court directed the trial court to frame charge within three months and thereafter expedite the trial.

4. Having heard Mr. Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the materials on record, we are satisfied that no case for interference is called for in the facts and circumstances as they stand at present. The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

5. We are informed by Mr. Kumar that giving due regard to the direction of the High Court, the trial court has framed charge against the petitioner. We are also informed by him that out of 9 (nine) witnesses, only 1 (one) witness has been examined so far.

6. In view thereof, we encourage the trial court to complete the trial as early as possible. However, in the event the trial is not concluded within a year from date, the petitioner shall be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail.

2

7. It is made clear that the petitioner shall not seek unnecessary adjournments while the trial is in progress.

8. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.

(DEEPAK JOSHI) (DIPTI KHURANA) COURT MASTER (SH) ASSISTANT REGISTRAR