Said Sk vs. State Of West Bengal

Facts

The petitioner, Said Sk., sought anticipatory bail in connection with Islampur PS Case No. 675 of 2024, registered under Sections 21(c)/29 of the NDPS Act. The petitioner's implication was initially based on a co-accused's statement. The petitioner argued that a similarly circumstanced co-accused had been granted anticipatory bail. The State opposed the bail, presenting case diary materials. The State contended that while the co-accused granted bail had a valid drug license, the petitioner's license, produced by a co-accused, was found to be fake. Crucially, GST documents were presented as evidence of drug deliveries based on this fake license to the petitioner.

Held

The Court rejected the petitioner's prayer for anticipatory bail. The Court found that there were incriminating materials available in the case diary. Specifically, the report indicated that the petitioner's drug license, though produced by a co-accused, was determined to be fake. Furthermore, the existence of GST documents showing transactions based on this fake license, involving deliveries to the petitioner, was considered significant. The Court also took into account the restrictions imposed by Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The reasoning was that the combination of the fake license, the GST evidence of transactions, and the statutory restrictions under the NDPS Act made the petitioner ineligible for anticipatory bail. The ratio decidendi is that evidence of transactions conducted using a fake license, substantiated by GST documents, coupled with the strict provisions of the NDPS Act, can be grounds for denying anticipatory bail. The operative direction was the rejection of the anticipatory bail application.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Suraksha Nagarik Sanhita, considering the materials on record, particularly the alleged fake drug license and related GST documents? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that their implication was solely based on the statement of a co-accused, which is inadmissible in evidence. They further argued that a similarly circumstanced co-accused had been granted anticipatory bail, suggesting parity in treatment. State's arguments: The State strongly opposed the prayer, relying on the case diary. They highlighted that the co-accused who was granted anticipatory bail possessed a valid drug license, whereas the petitioner's license, produced by another co-accused, was found to be fake. The State emphasized the existence of GST documents indicating drug deliveries based on this fake license to the petitioner, thereby establishing incriminating material against the petitioner.