Calcutta High Court: In a bail application filed by the implicated delivery boys of Delhivery Limited under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, a division bench of Tapabrata Chakraborty, and Prasenjit Biswas, JJ., granted bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/- each, with two sureties of like amount each, one of whom must be a local, to the satisfaction of the Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court (NDPS) at Cooch Behar with a further direction that the petitioners should meet with the investigating officer twice a week till the investigation is complete.
In the present case, the petitioners, who were contractually employed by private institutions, were assigned to collect a consignment as part of their work for Delhivery Limited, a courier and freight services company. Their job involved picking up shipments booked by customers. On the date in question, a business associate of Delhivery booked a consignment through the company’s online portal. In accordance with the standard operating procedure, the petitioners went to collect the cartons from a medical store. While returning with the consignment in a vehicle, the petitioners were intercepted and subsequently arrested. They have been in custody for over 135 days.
The petitioners contended that they were merely carrying out their professional duties and had no knowledge of the contents of the cartons. Their counsel argued that the petitioners were earning a meager income of Rs. 10,000 per month, which they relied on to support their families. Additionally, the petitioners were permanent residents with no criminal antecedents and there was no likelihood of their absconding. Considering these factors, it was argued that their continued detention was unnecessary, and they should be released on bail subject to any stringent conditions the Court deemed fit.
Additional Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the bail application, arguing that substantial incriminating material existed against the petitioners. It was submitted that contraband substances, exceeding commercial quantity, were recovered from their possession, which attracted the statutory restrictions under Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act. The prosecution further contended that the investigation was ongoing and that releasing the petitioners at this stage could hamper the process. It was also pointed out that the individual who booked the consignment had not yet been apprehended.
The Court examined the materials on record and found that the petitioners had annexed relevant documents, including a shipment order placed and the business associate agreement between Delhivery Ltd. and the person who placed the order. The Court observed that, prima facie, the circumstances surrounding the recovery of contraband substances did not necessarily indicate that the petitioners possessed the requisite mental element to establish conscious possession. There was no evidence to show that they had any nexus with either the medical store or the person who placed the order. Furthermore, the seizure list revealed that, apart from the three cartons containing contraband substances, there were also other items for delivery, such as an LED TV and wooden furniture. This suggested that the petitioners were merely transporting goods as part of their professional obligations and had no knowledge of the illicit nature of some of the items in their possession.
The Court noted that the petitioners had families and were dependent on their employment for sustenance, there is no reason to believe they would flee from justice or delay the investigation by absconding. Despite the statutory restrictions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the Court determined that, in the given factual backdrop, denying bail at this stage would not be justified.
Consequently, the Court released the petitioners on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000 each, with two sureties of like amount, one of whom must be a local resident, to the satisfaction of the Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court (NDPS) at Cooch Behar.
[In re Narayan Dey, 2025 SCC OnLine Cal 1371, decided on 13-02-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Dr. Arjun Chowdhury, Ms. Pratusha Dutta Chowdhury, Ms. Riya Agarwal Advocates for the Petitioners
Mr. Nilay Chakraborty, APP Mr. Saikat Chatterjee Advocates for the State
The manner of law enforcement shows the casual nature of the officials concerned and their blandishments to cover up . Seems just the opposite of the Aryan case.