Gauhati High Court
Rajdev Ray vs The Union Of India on 21 October, 2020
Author: Kalyan Rai Surana
Bench: Kalyan Rai Surana
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010141922020
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Bail Appln. 2113/2020
1:RAJDEV RAY
S/O MUNSHI RAY, R/O CHECHAR, P.S. BIDUPUR, DIST- VAISHALI, BIHAR,
PIN-844503
VERSUS
1:THE UNION OF INDIA
REP. BY THE DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE, SILCHAR SUB-
REGIONAL UNIT, SILCHAR
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR A HUSSAIN
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, CENTRAL EXCISE CUSTOMS
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA
ORDER
Date : 21.10.2020 Heard Mr. A. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Hazarika, learned counsel assisting the learned standing counsel for the respondent.
2. This application for bail has been made pursuant to order dated 15.05.2020 passed by the learned Special Judge, Cachar, Silchar in Departmental Case No. 02/CL/NDPS/DRI/SIL/2019-20 dated 20.11.2019. In terms of order dated 15.10.2020, the relevant records relating to the said proceeding has been received by email, which is at Flag- B of the file. On perusal of the same, it appears that on 15.05.2020, the prosecution through the Intelligence Officer has filed an application before the learned Special Judge, Cachar, Silchar for extension of time to file a complaint by assigning reasons. It was stated that the Page No.# 2/3 final complaint could not be filed within the statutory period, which falls on 17.05.2020 and, as such, prayed for allowing extension of 6 months time to submit the final complaint in the case. Accordingly, on the same day, i.e. 15.05.2020, the learned Special Judge, Cachar, Silchar had allowed the said application by extending the time for submission of final complaint.
3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submits that there has been a lapse on part of the prosecution.
4. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the provisions of section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act as well as the case of Jayanandan Prasad & Anr. vs State of Assam (2012) 1 GLT 426: (2013) 1 NEJ 269 to project that an application allowed on the same day without report of the public prosecutor as well as without notice to the accused had been held to be not tenable by this Court and accordingly, the prayer for bail was allowed.
5. In the present case in hand, also there is nothing on record to indicate that report of the public prosecutor was sought for by the learned Special Judge, Cachar, Silchar. The said learned Court below merely relied on the departmental petition. There is nothing on record to indicate that notice to the accused was given before the order against his interest has been passed. It is seen that in the above cited case of Jayanandan Prasad (supra), this Court place reliance in the case of Sanjay Kumar Kedia vs Intelligence Officer, NCB & Anr. (20009) 17 SCC 631, wherein the said principle had been laid down.
6. However, it is seen that the order dated 15.05.2020 has not been assailed by the petitioner. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to make any observation on the legality and validity of the order dated 15.05.2020.
7. However, in the present case in hand, as the petitioner has already undergone more than 180 days of custodial detention having been arrested on 21.11.2019, as such, the Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner is entitled to bail in view of the discussions above.
8. Accordingly, the Court is inclined to accept the prayer for bail. The learned Special Judge, Cachar, Silchar is directed to release the petitioner, namely, Rajdev Ray in connection with Departmental Case No. 02/CL/NDPS/DRI/SIL/2019-20 on furnishing bail bond of Rs.50,000/- with two suitable sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, Cachar, Silchar.
Page No.# 3/3 The bail is granted on the following conditions:
1. That the petitioner shall make himself available to the police or any other investigating agency or Court in the present case as and when required.
2. That the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. He shall not, in any manner, try to overawe or influence or intimidate the prosecution witness.
3. That the petitioner shall not obstruct the smooth progress of the investigation/trial.
4. That the petitioner shall not commit the offence similar to the offence to which he is accused or suspected.
5. That the petitioner shall not misuse his liberty in any manner.
6. That the petitioner shall not jump over the bail.
7. That the petitioner shall not go out of the District of Cachar without prior order from the learned Special Judge, Cachar, Silchar.
8. That the petitioner shall provide photocopy of the relevant land records of this place of residence at Silchar as well as of his home address at Bihar along with the resident certificate from the Municipal authorities or Gram Panchayat, as the case may be.
9. Let a copy of the order be provided to the Mr. B. Hazarika, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the learned standing counsel for the respondent so that he can give an advisory note to the D.R.I., Silchar Sub-Regional Unit to scrupulously follow the directions contained in the hereinbefore referred case of Jayanandan Prasad (supra).
10. This application stands disposed of.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant