LI Network
Published on: November 09, 2023 at 11:25 IST
The Calcutta High Court consisting of Justices Sabyasachi Bhattacharya and Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, has granted bail to individuals accused under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act.
The decision was based on the absence of a forensic report and the bench’s belief that the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act should not be applied in this particular case.
Section 37 of the NDPS Act mandates that bail can only be granted if there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused are not guilty and will not reoffend.
However, the bench noted that due to “institutional latches,” a forensic report (CFSL report) or even a supplementary charge sheet had not been included in this case.
The bench emphasized the importance of strictly interpreting Section 37, given that it deals with a person’s fundamental rights and personal liberty.
It was highlighted that no CFSL report had been submitted by the investigating authorities up to that point. Consequently, due to these institutional delays, the petitioners were not obligated to adhere to the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
Counsel for the petitioners argued that several NDPS Act contraventions had occurred in this case, making Section 37’s rigors inapplicable. They pointed out that while the chargesheet had been submitted within 180 days under Section 36A(4), it lacked the necessary CFSL report.
On the other hand, the State’s counsel argued that the NDPS Act’s provisions had been complied with and that the CFSL report was not a mandatory component of a chargesheet.
The bench referred to a previous decision in the case of Rakesh Sha v. State of West Bengal, where it was established that the test for further incarceration in such cases should be the existence of other incriminating circumstances against the accused. However, they found no such circumstances present in this particular case.
The Division Bench concluded that filing a chargesheet without the examination report related to an NDPS Act offense was an exercise in futility, creating the presumption that the investigating officer filed it merely to meet the 180-day deadline under the proviso to Section 36A(4) of the Act.
As a result, the Court granted bail to the petitioners.