Read Time: 05 minutes
Court observed that the prima facie evidence showed that an organised interstate crime racket was involved
The Calcutta High Court on Monday held that once a charge sheet is filed in an NDPS case, the order extending detention under section 36A(4) can’t be challenged. A litigant cannot be permitted to assail the said order of extension of detention at a time when it is no longer in existence, said the court.
The Division Bench of Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta and Justice Joymalya Bagchi said that the court is not inclined to substitute the subjective satisfaction of the Public Prosecutor in this regard.
The court observed, “In the present case, the petitioners did not assail the order extending the period of detention prior to the completion of the investigation. Upon conclusion of the investigation and submission of the complaint, the impugned order extending detention beyond 180 days no longer survives after the filing of the charge sheet. A litigant cannot be permitted to assail an order at a time when it is no longer in existence.”
The petitioners, in this case, were arrested allegedly while transporting narcotics i.e. 14970 bottles of phensedyl syrup containing codeine phosphate in 42 HDPE bags and 25 cartons in a truck.
The petitioners approached the High Court seeking statutory bail on the ground that the report seeking an extension of the period of detention in terms of Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act was not in accordance with the law. The court observed that the manner in which the drugs were transported showed an organized crime racket involving interstate transportation of drugs.
Court said, “Upon their arrest petitioners were interrogated and the role of co-accused viz. Sonu Kumar @ Sonu Goyal transpired. The said co-accused was arrested. On the 179th day of their detention, a report of the Investigating Officer seeking an extension of detention in terms of proviso to Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act was served upon them. On the next day, the application was filed and came to be allowed by order dated 08.07.2022. The petitioners did not assail the said order before a superior court.”
The court also noted that the petition for an extension clearly described the petitioners' role and the need to extend the detention period beyond 180 days. In the report, it was noted that the petitioners were from various states and that there was a possibility of their absconding and tampering with evidence.
The court relied on the Supreme Court's ruling in Qamar Ghani Usmani v. State of Gujarat, in which the highest court held that an earlier order of extension cannot be challenged if it had not been challenged and had merged into a subsequent order.
Case Title: In Re Maharaj Singh & Anr. vs. Customs
Please Login or Register
