Malay Mukharjee And Anr vs. The State Of Assam

Facts

The petitioners, Malay Mukharjee and Hironmoy Sarkar, sought bail in a case registered under Section 21(c) of the NDPS Act, 1985. They had been in judicial custody for 137 days. The petitioners argued that they were transporting a consignment of medicines, including Codeine-based cough syrup, from West Bengal to Assam with valid documents such as GST invoices and e-way bills. They contended that the Special Judge (NDPS Act) had found these documents to be genuine. Furthermore, the proprietor of the consignee, A.K. Drug Distributors, had filed an application for the release of the seized cough syrup bottles, claiming ownership. The State opposed the bail application, noting the case was at the investigation stage.

Held

The Court granted bail to the accused petitioners. While acknowledging the bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the Court was of the considered opinion that further continuation of their detention in judicial custody might not be warranted for the ends of justice and in the interest of the ongoing investigation, subject to the final outcome of the investigation. The reasoning was based on the petitioners' submission of valid GST invoices and e-way bills, which were verified and found to be genuine by the competent authority under the Assam Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, as noted by the Special Judge. The Court also considered the pending application by the claimed consignee for the release of the seized goods. The ratio decidendi is that where transport documents are verified as genuine under GST laws and the investigation is ongoing, continued detention may not be necessary for bail applicants, even in NDPS cases, pending final investigation outcomes. The petitioners were released on bail of Rs. 1,00,000/- each with two sureties of like amount, subject to conditions of cooperation with the investigation, refraining from influencing witnesses, and not committing similar offences.

Key Issues

1. Whether the accused petitioners are entitled to bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. despite the bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, considering their alleged innocence and the genuineness of the transport documents? (Mixed question of law and fact, turning on Section 37 of the NDPS Act and Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.). Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioners argued that they were innocent and merely discharging their duties as owner-co-driver and driver of a truck engaged in legitimate transportation business. They emphasized that all requisite documents, including GST invoices and e-way bills, were valid and had been verified by the competent authority under the Assam Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. They relied on the Special Judge's order dated 15.03.2023, which acknowledged the genuineness of these documents. They also pointed to the pending application for the release of the seized goods by the claimed consignee. Revenue/State's Arguments: The State argued that the case was still under investigation and opposed the bail application.