Rahim Sk vs State Of West Bengal & Ors.

It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in the instant case and has sought to co-operate with the investigation.

However, the investigating agency unlawfully threatened him with arrest and wrongful detention. As a result, he was constrained to lodge compliant

before the superior authority who have taken contingence of such fact. Report filed by the Central Vigilance Commission in that regard is taken on

record.

Learned lawyer for the NCB opposes the prayer for bail and submits the complicity of the petitioner has transpired from the statement of the co-

accused recorded under section 67 of the NDPS Act. We have considered the materials on record and we find that a large quantity of narcotic

substance above commercial quantity was seized from the possession of one Saribul Islam, co-accused, and in his statement recorded under section

67 of the NDPS Act he has implicated the petitioner as the financier of the said transaction.

Notice under section 67 of the NDPS Act have also been issued upon the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and

keeping in mind the gravity of the offence and the statutory restrictions under section 37 of the NDPS act, we are of the opinion that custodial

interrogation of the petitioner may be necessary for the progress of investigation and/or further recovery, if any, of narcotic substance. The

application for anticipatory bail is, thus, rejected.

We, however, make it clear that the observations made by us are for the purpose of disposal of this application and shall not have any bearing in the

progress of investigation and consideration of bail application, if any, preferred by the petitioner upon his arrest and detention in this case.