Praneswar Narjary And Anr. vs. The State Of Assam

Held

The Court held that the petitioners were entitled to bail. The reasoning was based on the fact that the seized cough syrups were accompanied by valid GST documents, the genuineness of which was not doubted by the investigating agency. The Court noted that the Additional Public Prosecutor also confirmed the authenticity of these GST papers. Considering these materials, the Court was satisfied that there was a reasonable ground for believing that the petitioners were not guilty of the alleged offence. The Court also took into account that the petitioners had been in custody for 105 days. The Court applied the provisions of Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act and found that the conditions for granting bail were met. The petitioners were directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a bail bond and sureties, subject to certain conditions including not leaving the territorial jurisdiction, not hampering the investigation, and not tampering with evidence.

Facts

The petitioners, Praneswar Narjary and Rupom Das, are accused in Abhayapuri P.S. Case No. 684/2020, registered under Sections 22(C)/29 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. They were apprehended on September 21, 2020, when a vehicle they were driving was intercepted. The vehicle was found to be carrying 3970 numbers of OWNREX cough syrup. The petitioners claimed they were merely carriers for Rahman Drug Distributor. The seized cough syrups were allegedly purchased with valid documents, including GST challans, which were not disputed by the investigating agency.

Key Issues

1. Whether the seized cough syrups, accompanied by valid GST documents, fall within the ambit of 'narcotic drugs' or 'psychotropic substances' as defined under the NDPS Act, 1985, warranting the application of Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the Act? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioners argued that they were mere carriers of the cough syrup, which was purchased with valid GST documents. They contended that the genuineness of the GST challans was not doubted by the investigating agency, suggesting the goods were legally procured and transported. They relied on the availability of valid documents to support their claim that the seized items were not illicit substances. Revenue's Argument: The State, represented by the Additional Public Prosecutor, conceded that the GST papers available in the case diary were not disputed and were confirmed to be genuine by the investigating police officer. The State did not dispute the validity of the documents presented by the petitioners.