Jayant Kr Rajbonshi vs. The State Of Assam

Held

The Court rejected the prayer for bail at this stage. The reasoning was based on the materials present in the case diary, which indicated the petitioner's involvement in the alleged offence. Specifically, the Court noted the submission by the Additional Public Prosecutor that a co-accused had clearly stated that the petitioner used to purchase codeine syrup bottles/contraband in the name of Maa Manasha Pharmaceutical and distribute them. While acknowledging the petitioner's submission of purchase challans and GST vouchers, the Court observed that these documents were seized by the police but not reflected in the case diary. The Court directed that the case diary be returned to the Investigating Police Officer for reflecting these documents in future proceedings, if required. The Court also noted that there was still time left for completing the investigation within the statutory period. No specific issue was left undecided.

Facts

This case involves a bail application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.PC by Jayant Kr. Rajbonshi, the accused-petitioner, in connection with CID Police Station Case No. 22/2020, registered under Sections 22(C)/29 of the NDPS Act. The petitioner was apprehended with 3,200 bottles of codeine syrup in a Mahindra pickup van. Subsequent investigation, led by the petitioner, resulted in the recovery of an additional 6,400 bottles, bringing the total to 9,600 bottles. The petitioner claimed he was merely transporting the syrup, which was destined for Hailakandi and not owned by him. He presented purchase challans and GST vouchers for the syrup, purportedly in the name of Maa Manasha Pharmaceutical, Hailakandi.

Key Issues

1. Whether the accused-petitioner is entitled to bail under Section 439 of the Cr.PC, considering the recovery of 9,600 bottles of codeine syrup and the allegations of his involvement in purchasing and distributing the contraband. The petitioner's side argued that the codeine syrup was destined for Hailakandi and he was merely a carrier, not the owner. They highlighted the existence of purchase challans and GST vouchers in the name of Maa Manasha Pharmaceutical, Hailakandi, as evidence of legitimate purchase. The revenue (State) side contended, based on the case diary, that a co-accused indicated the petitioner used to purchase such codeine syrup bottles/contraband in the name of Maa Manasha Pharmaceutical and distribute them to various individuals, including co-accused. This, they argued, clearly implicated the petitioner in the commission of the alleged offence.