'Requires Attention Of Superiors': Calcutta HC Raps Investigating Officer For Allegedly Demanding Money, Refusing To Examine Petitioner Without Identification Proof

The Calcutta High Court on Monday came down heavily on an Investigating Officer while adjudicating upon an anticipatory bail application in connection with a case under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act).

A Bench comprising # expressed strong reservations over the conduct of the concerned Investigation Officer after being apprised that the officer had refused to examine the petitioner in response to a notice under Section 67 of the NDPS Act in the absence of the petitioner's identification proof. 

"An investigation is in progress. It is intriguing that the Investigating Officer requires the identification proof of the person appearing before him in response to a notice under Section 67 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. He is not aware of the person who is required to be interviewed thereunder in absence of his identification proof", the Court underscored. 

Further opining that the conduct of the Investigating Officer requires the attention of his superiors, the Court remarked, 

"The conduct of the Investigating Officer, requires attention of his superiors"

The counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is 100 per cent visually challenged and further averred that the petitioner visited the office of the Investigating Officer on on April 9, 2022 and on April 24, 2022 pursuant to the order dated April 6, 2022. 

He further showed photographs taken of the appearance of his client at the office of the Investigating Officer and further apprised the Bench that the Investigating Officer had refused to record the attendance of the petitioner and demanded money for recording his presence.

On the country, the counsel appearing for the customs submitted that the petitioner did not produce any identification proof and, therefore, he cannot be examined.

Granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner, the Court observed, 

"Considering the conduct of the petitioner and the Investigating Officer as noted above and considering the fact that no narcotic was recovered from the possession of the petitioner, we are of the view that the petitioner is able to overcome the restrictions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985. Consequently, we deem it appropriate to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail."

The Court further directed that in the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties of like amount each, to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer and subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the CrPC and on the condition that the petitioner shall appear every day before the jurisdictional Court on and from the date fixed for appearance of the accused and in default the jurisdictional Court will pass appropriate order to secure the presence of the petitioner in Court including cancelling the anticipatory bail granted. 

Case Title: In the matter of: Parimal Barui

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 143 

Click Here To Read/Download Order