Gauhati High Court
Heisnam Chaoba Singh vs Narcotics Control Bureau on 6 November, 2023
Author: Malasri Nandi
Bench: Malasri Nandi
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010174442023
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Bail Appln./2858/2023
HEISNAM CHAOBA SINGH
S/O HEISNAM MATHUMBA SINGH
R/O WANGOIO SANDANGKHONG
MAYAI LEIKAI, MOIRANG
DIST. BISHNUPUR
MANIPUR-795133
PH. NO. 94354-87784
VERSUS
NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU
REPRESENTED BY STANDING COUNSEL, S.C. KEYAL.
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR U S BORGOHAIN
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, NCB
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MALASRI NANDI
ORDER
Date : 06.11.2023 Heard Mr. U.S. Borgohain, learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. Ms. M. Deka, learned counsel appears on behalf of Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned Standing counsel, NCB submits that due to some election process, Mr. Keyal is not available till 1st week of December.
Page No.# 2/5
3. This is the second bail application made under Section 439 Cr.P.C., seeking bail by the accused-petitioner, namely, Heisnam Chaoba Singh, in connection with NDPS Case No. 111/2017 pending before the court of learned Additional District and Sessions Judge No.2, Kamrup(M), Guwahati.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the accused/petitioner has been detained in custody since 27.09.2021. It is also submitted that out of 20 witnesses, only 9 witnesses were examined. It is further submitted that while rejecting the bail application by this Court on 14.06.2023, the learned Standing counsel NCB has submitted that almost all the witnesses were examined and only 2(two) witnesses remained to be examined in the case and the matter would be disposed of within 2(two) weeks. Thereafter, more than four months have been elapsed but the witnesses are not examined and the trial is at the same stage. It is also submitted that the witnesses who were examined, no one has implicated the accused/petitioner in this case. Under such backdrop, learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed that considering the period of detention, bail may be granted to the petitioner.
5. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the following case laws-
(i) Junush Kahn v. The State of Assam in BA No. 1411/2023
(ii) Pezalhoulie Rupero v. The State of Assam in BA No. 3074/2022.
(iii) Ramesh Bhutlani v. The Union of India in BA No. 513/2023.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel representing NCB has Page No.# 3/5 vehemently opposed in granting bail to the petitioner on the ground that commercial quantity of Cannabis(ganja) was seized from the vehicle of the accused/petitioner. It is also submitted that in spite of best efforts, the prosecution has failed to produce the witnesses. Considering the background of the case, bail may not be granted to the petitioner at this stage of trial.
7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. I have also perused the scanned copy of LCR and the status report submitted by the trial court.
8. It appears from the record that the accused has been detained in custody for more than two years. In spite of submission of learned Standing counsel, NCB to dispose of the matter within two weeks, the prosecution did not take so much of initiative to dispose of the matter within the specified period.
9. In the case of Union of India vs. K.A. Najeed reported in (2021) v. 3 SCC 713, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that:-
"12. Even in the case of special legislations like the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 or the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ("the NDPS Act") which too have somewhat rigorous conditions for grant of bail, this Court in Paramjit Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi), (1999) 9 SCC 252] , Babba v. State of Maharashtra, (2005) 11 SCC 569 and Umarmia v. State of Gujarat, (2017) 2 SCC 731 enlarged the accused on bail when they had been in jail for an extended period of time with little possibility of early completion of trial....."
Page No.# 4/5
10. In the case of Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in (2022) (10) SCC 51, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that prolonged incarceration and inordinate delay engaged the attention of the court, which considered the correct approach towards bail, with respect to several enactments, including Section 37 NDPS Act. The court expressed the opinion that Section 436A (which requires inter alia the accused to be enlarged on bail if the trial is not concluded within specified periods) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 would apply:
"We do not wish to deal with individual enactments as each special Act has got an objective behind it, followed by the rigour imposed. The general principle governing delay would apply to these categories also. To make it clear, the provision contained in Section 436-A of the Code would apply to the Special Acts also in the absence of any specific provision. For example, the rigour as provided under Section 37 of the NDPS Act would not come in the way in such a case as we are dealing with the liberty of a person. We do feel that more the rigour, the quicker the adjudication ought to be. After all, in these types of cases number of witnesses would be very less and there may not be any justification for prolonging the trial. Perhaps there is a need to comply with the directions of this Court to expedite the process and also a stricter compliance of Section 309 of the Code."
11. In view of the aforesaid legal mandates and considering the period of detention with of little chance of disposing of the case within 2/3 months, as well as it also appears that out of 20(twenty) witnesses, only 9(nine) witnesses were examined as per staus report of the concerned court, under such backdrop, this Court is of the view that the Page No.# 5/5 accused/petitioner may be enlarged on bail.
12. Accordingly, the accused-petitioner, named above, shall be released on bail in connection with NDPS Case No. 111/2017 pending before the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Kamrup(M), Guwahati, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.1,00,000/- with two suitable sureties of the like amount out of which one of the sureties should be a Government employee, to the satisfaction of Additional District and Sessions Judge No.2, Kamrup(M), Guwahati.
13. The direction for bail is further subject to the following condition that the accused-petitioner:
(a) shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of learned Additional District and Sessions Judge No.2, Kamrup(M), Guwahati, without prior written permission from him/her.
14. The learned Additional District and Sessions Judge No.2, Kamrup(M), Guwahati, is at liberty to impose any condition(s) as it deems fit and proper at the time of releasing the accused/petitioner on bail to procure his attendance during trial.
15. The observation made above, shall confine for the purpose of disposal of this bail application only and shall not in any way affect the proceeding of the trial.
16. In terms of the above, this bail application stands disposed of.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant