Every offence punishable under Sikkim Anti Drugs Act, 2006 shall be cognizable: High Court of Sikkim

THE HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM: GANGTOK Criminal Jurisdiction) SINGLE BENCH: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BHASKAR RAJ PRADHAN JUDGE Bail Application No. 121 Pratik Biswakarma S o Nar Bahadur Biswakarma R o Zoom Daragoan West Sikkim Presently at judicial custody in Boomtar Jail. Namchi South Sikkim. ….. Applicant State of Sikkim ….. Respondent Application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. Ms. Tashi Doma Bhutia Advocate for the Applicant. Mr. Sudesh Joshi Public Prosecutor with Mr. Sujan the State Sunwar Assistant Public Prosecutor Date of hearing : 23.10.2021. ORDERBhaskar Raj Pradhan J. Pratik Biswakarma has moved this application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. He was arrested on 18.02.2021 in connection with the First Information Report lodged on 18.02.2021 after the seizure Bail Application No. 121 Pratik Biswakarma vs. State of Sikkim of controlled substances from the vehicle in which he and five others were travelling. According to the applicant he had applied for bail before the learned Special Judge on five occasions which have all been rejected on various grounds. 2. Ms. Tashi Doma Bhutia learned counsel for the applicant submits that besides the FIR he has not been implicated by any of the materials or statements filed along with the charge sheet. It is submitted that he has no past criminal record he is a young man of 23 years and therefore he should be granted bail. The learned Public Prosecutor however opposes the grant of bail on the ground that there is no material to reflect that he is not guilty of the offence. The prosecution against the applicant is under section 9(1) c) and 9(4) of Sikkim Anti Drugs Act 2006 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code 1860Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 a) every offence punishable under this Act shall be cognizable b) no person accused of an offence punishable under this Act shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless i) the Public Prosecutor has been heard and also given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release and ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not Bail Application No. 121 Pratik Biswakarma vs. State of Sikkim guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. 2) The limitations on granting of bail specified in clause of sub section are in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail.” The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application and has also filed a reply in opposition dated 08.10.2021. Under section 18(1) of the SADA where the learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application for bail the person accused of an offence punishable under the act cannot be released on bail until the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. This court has examined the records of the case and it is of the firm view that there are no reasonable grounds for believing that the applicant is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. The application for bail is accordingly rejected. Bhaskar Raj Pradhan ) Judge Approved for reporting: Yes No :Yes No Internet 

Summary: There were reasonable grounds for believing that he was not guilty of such offence and that he won’t commit any offence while on bail. Such was held by The Hon’ble High Court of Sikkim before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bhaskar Raj Pradhan in the matter of Pratik Biswakarma Vs. State of Sikkim [BA No. 12 of 2021].  The facts of the case were associated with an application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It was reported that the applicant Pratik Biswakarma was arrested because of an FIR, as controllable substances were found in the vehicle where he and five others travelled. It was stated by the applicant that five bail appeals were rejected by the Special Judge on various grounds. The Counsel representing the applicant stated that the applicant was a young man of 23 years and thereby should be granted bail. The Public Prosecutor stated that no materials were found that would prove his innocence. The prosecution against the applicant was under section 9(1) (c) and 9(4) of Sikkim Anti Drugs Act, 2006 and section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Prosecutor was against the bail and filed a reply for the same. The PP stated that the applicant cannot be granted any bail unless there were reasonable grounds for believing that he was not guilty of such an offence and that the Court was satisfied with the same.  After considering all the submissions, The Hon’ble Court stated that “This court has examined the records of the case and it is of the firm view that there are no reasonable grounds for believing that the applicant is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. The application for bail is accordingly rejected.”