ANIRUDDHA BOSE,J. - (1.) The petitioner is in custody since 16th April 2015, in connection with allegations of commission of offence punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(c) and 29 read with Section 8 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (1985 Act). A team comprising of officers of the NCB had intercepted a vehicle on 1st May 2014, at about 1.30 hours near Howrah station. The raiding team had reached the location near Railway Museum close to the station on early hours of that date on receiving specific information, as per the prosecution case. The NCB team, it is claimed by the prosecution found two individuals walking from the direction of the Howrah station with two trunks. These two persons had stopped near that vehicle and loaded the two trunks on the vehicle. It was at that point of time the members of the NCB team intercepted the vehicle. Subsequent thereto, the vehicle was searched and 65 Kgs of Ganja was seized from the said vehicle. The driver of the vehicle, Amir Sultan Sk., as well as those two persons were issued notices in terms of Section 67 of the 1985 Act. In his statement, which was voluntary as per the prosecution case, Amir Sultan Sk., in response to such notice, is alleged to have implicated the petitioner, who is his own brother, as being the main person on whose instruction he had reached the location for collecting the contraband article. Prosecution case is that he was working in the "Ganja" business of his elder brother. The NCB team had raided the residence of said Amir Sultan Sk., on the basis of information disclosed by him and further seized 18 Kgs of Ganja from his house at village Laghu Sangrampur under Diamond Harbour police station in 24 -Parganas (South) at about 5.50 hours on the same date. The NCB team subsequently had visited the residence of the petitioner at Dakshinpara, Bilanandapur under the Mograhat police station but he could not be found there.
(2.) The petitioner had applied for anticipatory bail before this Court, which was registered as CRM No. 9830 of 2014, but this application was rejected by a Coordinate Bench of this Court on 17th November 2014. A Special Leave Petition was filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the said order of rejection, but this petition was also dismissed on 16th March 2015. In the order of dismissal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to observe that if the petitioner surrendered within four weeks therefrom and applied for regular bail, if so advised, the Trial Court should consider the same on its own merit. It was also directed in the same order that no coercive action was to be taken against the petitioner for four weeks. The petitioner had earlier surrendered before the learned Special Judge under the 1985 Act on 16th April 2015 and thereafter he was taken into custody. The petitioner had applied for bail before this Court by filing an application which was registered as CRM No. 4590 of 2015. This application was rejected on 21st May 2015, by a Coordinate Bench of this Court considering the allegations against him as also the provisions of Section 37 of the 1985 Act. A second bail application was also filed by the petitioner which was registered as CRM No. 8536 of 2015. The petitioner, however, did not press that application and on 22nd September 2015, the said application for bail was dismissed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court as not pressed.
(3.) The prayer for bail of the petitioner has been renewed by filing this application. In this petition, the petitioner has denied the allegations against him and also stressed on long period of detention he has already undergone. Mr. Basu, learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioner has further submitted that investigation has been completed in this case and there is no necessity to continue with detention of the petitioner. In course of hearing, however, substantial argument was advanced behalf of the petitioner questioning power of the officers of the NCB to issue notices under Section 67 of the 1985 and also their power the statements under Section 67 of the 1985 Act. It is contended by Mr. Basu that the 1985 Act contemplates exercise of power under the aforesaid provisions only in course of enquiry. His case is that since the 1985 Act does not define the term "enquiry", in terms of Section 2(xxix) thereof, the meaning assigned to the term "inquiry" under Section 2(g) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ought to be applied while construing Section 67 of the 1985 Act. If this provision of the 1973 Code is applied, then the enquiry ought to be conducted by a Magistrate or Court only. Mr. Basu has submitted that the terms "enquiry" and "investigation" ought not to be applied interchangeably, as the latter expression has been employed in Section 53 of the 1985 Act, which would establish that the legislature had intended to impute specific meanings to these two expressions in different Sections of the 1985 Act. The other point urged by Mr. Basu is that allegation against the petitioner involves seizure of 18 Kgs Ganja, which is below the commercial quantity and rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act ought not to apply in the case of the petitioner. He emphasised on the fact that no recovery or seizure of any contraband article was made from the possession of the petitioner, and he was sought to be implicated on the basis of statement of co -accused persons.;