Why is it that of every 10 arrested for drug-related cases, 7 are out on bail? Is it “that innocent stand falsely implicated”, asked the Tripura High Court while pulling up the Biplab Kumar Deb government for the “shocking state of affairs” in the investigation of these cases.
Since coming to power, Tripura Chief Minister Deb has made “ending the drug menace” in the state his top priority. In his Independence Day address, he said, “The law enforcing agencies have maximized their efforts to make Tripura a ‘drug-free state’, as declared by the BJP government.”
The crackdown on Tripura’s alleged drug mafia is among the BJP government’s key achievements with Deb also arguing that it has made the state safer for women. Meanwhile, this, the Tripura CM has repeatedly cited as evidence of the erstwhile Left Front government’s corruption. In September, he accused his predecessor Manik Sarkar of “acting like a saint” and yet “not taking a step to fight the drug menace”
Amidst these politically fraught lines, the Tripura High Court, in an order last week, noted the “shocking state of affairs with regard to the manner in which investigation is being carried out by the agencies” and found that “out of 660 persons arrested in connection with the crime relating to psychotropic substance, 435 persons stand enlarged on bail”.
The police told the High Court in a statement that a total of 433 cases were registered in 2018 and cases were pending beyond 90 days in 278 of them. A total of 65,364 kilograms of cannabis, 3096 grams of heroin and 1, 88, 099 bottles of cough syrup were seized, the police added.
But what were the reasons for the grant of the bail, asked the court. “Is it what is commonly termed as a default bail” or “is it that the Public Prosecutor conceded to the grant of bail” or “is it that the Public Prosecutors did not oppose the same” or “is it that the Courts have passed the orders without following the settled principles of law” “or is it that innocent stand falsely implicated.”
“If so, then why no action, in accordance with law, stands taken against the erring persons by the authorities,” the court added.
The court, which was hearing the case of an accused, Pritam Roy who had allegedly been arrested with over 289 kg marijuana in his custody, noted that between November 19, 2018 and December 13, 2018 – there had been “no specific order of grant of interim bail.”
“Yet no steps were taken by the police to take into custody the said accused Pritam Roy from whom, allegedly more than 289 kgs of dry ganja was recovered. Is it the case of police that his custody was not required,” asked the court. Before hearing the plea further, the court asked for records of the trial court and asked the police to record all information with cases pertaining to the NDPS Act.
This information, the court specified had to “in detail and individually indicate the number of the case; the number of persons arrested in connection thereto”. The court also asked for the “date of their arrest; date on which interim or final order of bail was granted”, the reason for the bail or whether the interim order has “attained finality”.
Further, the court asked “as to whether any proceedings assailing the same stands initiated and/or is sought to be filed” and “the reason for not completing the investigation or not presenting the challan within the stipulated period etc.”
The court asked for all this to be completed within two weeks and listed the matter for January 29.
Comments
0 comment