Gauhati High Court
Bail Appln./1868/2024 on 9 January, 2025
Author: Manish Choudhury
Bench: Manish Choudhury
Page No.# 1/21
GAHC010107302024
2025:GAU-AS:440
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Bail Application No. 1564/2024
Chandra Vir [Age - 37 years], Son of Uday Singh, Resident of
54 Chandpur, Khurd, Bajna Dehat, Mathura, District -
Mathura, Uttar Pradesh. PIN - 281201.
......Accused/Petitioner
-VERSUS-
Narcotics Control Bureau, Guwahati Zonal Unit, Guwahati,
Assam.
....Respondent
With
Bail Application No. 1868/2024
Rajeev Upadhay @ Rajeev Upadhayay [Age – 29 years], Son
of Jitendra Upadhayay, Resident of Paschim Mohalla, Lohvan,
P.S. – Jamuna Pallipar, District – Mathura, Uttar Pradesh, PIN –
281204.
……Accused/Petitioner
-VERSUS-
Narcotics Control Bureau, Guwahati Zonal Unit, Guwahati,
Assam.
….Respondent
Page No.# 2/21
Advocates :
Accused/Petitioner : Mr. N. Anand, Advocate.
Respondent : Mr. S.C. Keyal, Special Public Prosecutor,
Narcotics Control Bureau.
Date of Judgment & Order : 09.01.2025
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY
JUDGMENT & ORDER
1. These two applications are preferred by the accused-petitioners viz. [i]
Chandra Vir [the petitioner in B.A. no. 1564/2024]; and [ii] Rajeev Upadhay @
Rajeev Upadhayay [the petitioner in B.A. no. 1868/2024]; under Section 439,
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [‘CrPC’ and/or ‘the Code’, for short], seeking
their release on bail in connection with NDPS Case no. 89 of 2020, arising out of
NCB Crime Case no. 08 of 2020, registered for offences under Section 8[c] read
with Section 20[b][ii][C] and Section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances [NDPS] Act, 1985, the trial of which is presently pending before the
Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 3 [FTC], Kamrup [Metro] at
Guwahati [‘the Special Court’, for short] in the form of NDPS Case no. 89 of
2020.
2. As both the applications have arisen out of the same case, NDPS Case
no. 89 of 2020 read with NCB Crime Case no. 08 of 2020 and the learned
counsel for the parties have submitted that the two petitioners are similarly
Page No.# 3/21
situated, both the bail applications are taken up together for consideration, as
agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties.
3. The petitioner, Rajeev Upadhay @ Rajeev Upadhayay had earlier
approached this Court by preferring a bail application under Section 439, CrPC
and the same was registered and numbered as B.A. no. 553/2021. The said bail
application was rejected by an Order dated 27.04.2021 after considering the
materials on record qua the provisions contained in Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
The events leading to the arrest and custody of the petitioners, as already
culled out in the earlier Order dated 27.04.2021 [supra] as well as from the
documents and materials placed before this Court, can be mentioned as
follows :-
3.1. At about 12-15 hours on 22.05.2020, the Intelligence Officer, NCB,
Guwahati received an information from a reliable source to the effect that two
persons viz. [1] Rajeev Upadhay @ Rajeev Upadhayay [the petitioner in B.A. no.
1868/2024]; and [2] Sri Chandra Vir [the petitioner in B.A. No. 1564/2024];
would be carrying a huge quantity of Ganja in a truck bearing registration no.
JK-02/AG-8645 [‘the subject-vehicle’, for short]. The subject-vehicle would be
coming from Agartala and would arrive near a health institution named ‘Health
City Hospital’, located at Khanapara, Guwahati on National Highway 37 at about
16-00 hours on 22.05.2020.
3.2. The said information was reduced into writing and submitted before the
Superintendent, NCB, Guwahati on 22.05.2020 and on being directed, a team
was constituted with one of them was authorized to search, seize and arrest as
Page No.# 4/21
Investigating Officer [I.O.]. It is stated that at around 15-40 hours, the team by
sharing information, called for the assistance of two independent witnesses in
order to carry out the process of search and seizure in their presence. The
subject-vehicle, as per information above, arrived near the Health City Hospital,
Khanapara, Guwahati at about 17-10 hours on 22.05.2020.
3.3. Having seen the arrival of the subject-vehicle with two occupants inside
it, the NCB team along with the two independent witnesses requested the two
occupants to get down from the subject-vehicle. When asked, they introduced
themselves as [1] Rajeev Upadhay @ Rajeev Upadhayay [the petitioner in B.A.
no. 1868/2024]; and [2] Sri Chandra Vir [the petitioner in B.A. no. 1564/2024].
3.4. Thereafter, search was carried out inside the subject-vehicle. During the
search, five nos. of jute sacks containing dried flowering tops, believed to be
Ganja, were recovered from the carrier part of the subject-vehicle just behind
the cabin, concealed among bundles of empty jute sacks. A small quantity of
homogenous mixture of said flowering tops was taken out from each of the five
jute sacks. When tested with the help of the drug detection kit carried by the
team, it gave positive result for Cannabis [Ganja].
3.5. Apart from the above seizure, certain other articles were seized from
the possession of the two accused persons. When weighed with the help of
digital weighing machine in presence of the independent witnesses and the two
accused persons, the total weight of the suspected Ganja was found to be 101
kgs. On reasonable belief that an offence had been committed under Section
8[c] read with Section 20[b][ii][C]/29 of the NDPS Act, all the recovered items
Page No.# 5/21
including the suspected Cannabis [Ganja] and the subject-vehicle were seized.
The search-cum-seizure process was completed at about 23-30 hours on
22.05.2020.
3.6. Thereafter, notices under Section 67 of the NDPS Act were stated to
have been served on the accused persons to record their voluntary statements
and they having agreed to do so, were brought to the NCB Office, Guwahati for
recording their statements. The voluntary statements, purportedly under Section
67 of the NDPS Act, were recorded.
3.7. Both the arrested accused persons were produced before the Court of
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup [Metro], Guwahati on 24.05.2020.
During the course of investigation, another accused viz. Ramu Ghosh was
arrested based on information provided by these two arrested accused persons.
The accused, Ramu Ghosh was arrested from West Bengal and after transit
remand, he was produced before the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Kamrup,
Guwahati. Upon such production, he was remanded initially to Police/NCB
custody and thereafter, to judicial custody. Another accused person, Murshid
Alam was found to be absconding.
3.8. The samples taken out from the total quantity were sent to the Forensic
Science Laboratory [FSL], Guwahati for chemical examination. The chemical
examination report was forwarded by the FSL vide its Report dated 15.06.2020.
As per the Report of the FSL, the samples gave positive result for Cannabis
[Ganja].
Page No.# 6/21
3.9. Upon completion of investigation, the NCB submitted the complaint
under Section 36[1][d], NDPS Act in NCB Crime Case no. 08 of 2020 before the
jurisdictional Special Court against four persons viz. [1] Rajeev Upadhay @
Rajeev Upadhayay; [2] Sri Chandra Vir; 3] Sri Ramu Ghosh; and [4] Md. Mursid
Alam. While the first three accused persons were shown to be in custody, the
accused no. 4 was shown as an absconder in the Offence Report.
3.10. In the complaint so filed under Section 36[1][d] of the NDPS Act in NCB
Crime Case no. 08 of 2020, the roles of the four charge-sheeted accused were
described as under :-
[i] Chandra Vir – He was the trafficker of drugs and was a driver of seized
truck bearing registration No-JK-02/AG-8645 and as per his statement he
was in conscious possession of seized 101 Kgs. Ganja which was supplied
from Agartala by later arrested Ramu Ghosh and was to deliver the
contraband item to Murshid Alam at Dalkhola, Uttar Dinajpur, West Bengal
and he was in a constant contact with Ramu Ghosh and Murshid Alam.
[i] Rajeev Upadhyay – He was the trafficker of drugs and a second driver of
the seized truck bearing registration no.-JK-02/AG-8645 and as per his
statement he was in conscious possession of seized 101 Kgs. Ganja and
was to deliver the contraband item to Murshid Alam at Dalkhola, Uttar
Dinajpur, West Bengal with Chadra Vir and he was in constant contact with
Ramu Ghosh and Murshid Alam.
[iii] Ramu Ghosh – He was main supplier of the seized 101 Kgs. Ganja and
as per his statement under his direction the seized Ganja was loaded into
Page No.# 7/21truck bearing registration no. JK-02/AG-8645 from Agartala, Tripura by both
Chadra Vir and Rajeev Upadhyay was conscious of and illegal trafficking of
Ganja was to deliver the contraband item to Murshid Alam at Uttar Dinajpur,
West Bengal and he was constant contacted with Chadra Vir, Rajeev
Upadhyay and Murshid Alam.
[iv] Md. Murshid Alam – He was the main receiver of the seized 101 Kgs
Ganja which was Chandra Vir and Rajeev Upadhyay was loaded under
direction of arrested Ramu Ghosh [Supplier] into the seized truck bearing
registration no. JK-02/AG-8645 was to take deliver at Dalkhola, Uttar
Dinajpur, West Bengal as they revealed on their statements and he was in
constant contact with Chandra Vir, Rajeev Upadhyay and Ramu Ghosh as
per voluntary statement of Ramu Ghosh, Murshid Alam financed also the
whole drugs.
4. On submission of the complaint under Section 36[1][d], NDPS Act by
the Investigating Agency, NCB on 17.11.2020 before the Court of learned
Sessions Judge, In-Charge, Kamrup [Metro], Guwahati, the case has been
registered and numbered as NDPS Case no. 89 of 2020. By an Order dated
17.11.2020, the learned Sessions Judge, In-Charge, Kamrup [Metro] Guwahati
transferred the case records of NDPS Case no. 89 of 2020 to the Court of
learned Additional Sessions Judge [FTC] No. 3, Kamrup [Metro] at Guwahati
[‘the Special Court’] for disposal.
5. I have heard Mr. N. Anand, learned counsel for the accused-petitioners
and Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent
Narcotics Control Bureau [NCB].
Page No.# 8/21
6. On institution of the two bail applications, the scanned copies of the
case records of NDPS Case no. 89 of 2020, arising out of NCB Crime Case no.
08 of 2020, were requisitioned. The scanned copies of the case records were
accordingly received and the same have been perused. The respondent NCB
have also filed status-cum-objection reports in both the applications. The
learned counsel for the parties, during the course of their submissions, have
referred to a nos. of decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and of this
Court in support of their respective submissions and reference of some of these
decisions would be made in the later part of this order at appropriate places.
The learned Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent NCB has also
submitted written submissions.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted on the
provisions contained in Section 37 of the NDPS Act as well as on the
fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India in
support of the prayer of the petitioners’ release on bail. Similarly, the learned
Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent NCB has also made
submissions on the rigours contained in Section 37 of the NDPS Act and the
restrictions placed on the Court by Section 37 of the NDPS Act in the matter of
granting bail to an accused person who is found to be involved in an offence
pertaining to contraband like Ganja of commercial quantity.
8. It is settled law that in respect of an offence under the NDPS Act
involving commercial quantity, the powers of this Court to grant bail under
Section 439, CrPC are subject to the limitations contained in Section 37 of the
Page No.# 9/21
NDPS Act and the restrictions placed on the powers of the Court under Section
37, NDPS Act are applicable to this Court also in the matter of granting bail.
9. Section 37 of the NDPS Act starts with a non-obstante clause. Keeping
the non-obstante clause in mind, a reading of sub-section [2] of Section 37 of
the NDPS Act makes it clear that the power to grant bail to a person accused of
having committed an offence either under Section 19 or Section 24 or Section
27A and also offences involving commercial quantity under the NDPS Act is not
only subject to the limitations imposed under Section 439, CrPC, it is also
subject to the restrictions placed by sub-clause [b] of sub-section [1] of Section
37 of the NDPS Act. Apart from giving an opportunity to the Public Prosecutor to
oppose the application for such release, the other two conditions viz. [i] the
satisfaction of the Court that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the
accused is not guilty of the alleged offence; and [ii] that he is not likely to
commit any offence while on bail, have to be satisfied. In other words, these
limitations are in addition to those prescribed under the CrPC or any other law in
force on the grant of bail. The operative part of Section 37, NDPS Act is in the
negative form. Such stringent restrictions have been put on the discretion of the
Court for considering application for release of a person accused of offences
prescribed therein by the Legislature consciously in view of the seriousness of
the offences. The conditions mentioned in Section 37 of the NDPS Act are
cumulative and not alternative. The satisfaction contemplated regarding the
accused being not guilty, has to be based on ‘reasonable grounds’.
10. The issue as regards prolonged incarceration of the accused implicated
or charged with an offence under NDPS Act has come under consideration of
Page No.# 10/21
the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and of this Court in a number of cases
including the cases cited by the learned counsel for the parties.
11. The learned Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent NCB has
referred to a three-Judge decision in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs. Rajesh
Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav and another, [2005] 2 SCC 42, to submit that in the
said decision, it has been observed as a trite law that personal liberty cannot be
taken away except in accordance with the procedure established by law.
Personal liberty is a constitutional guarantee. However, Article 21 which
guarantees the above right also contemplates deprivation of personal liberty by
procedure established by law. It has been observed therein that under the
criminal laws of the country, a person accused of offences which are non-
bailable, is liable to be detained in custody during the pendency of bail unless
he is enlarged on bail in accordance with law. It has been held that such
detention cannot be questioned as being violative of Article 21 since the same is
authorized by law. In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar [supra], the respondent sought
grant of bail in a Sessions triable case wherein he was charged for offences
punishable under Section 302 read with Sections 307/34/120B, IPC read with
Section 27 of the Arms Act.
11.1. Per contra, the learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to a
three-Judge decision in Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb, [2021] 3 SCC 701, to
point out that in the said decision, it has been observed that 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 which have
rigorous conditions for grant of bail, the Court in Paramjit Singh vs. State [NCB
of Delhi], [1999] 9 SCC 252; Babba alias Shankar Raghuman Rohida vs. State
Page No.# 11/21
of Maharashtra, [2005] 11 SCC 569; Umarmia alias Mamumia vs. State of
Gujarat, [2017] 2 SCC 731, had 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. It has also been observed there that the constitutionality of
harsh conditions for bail in such special enactments, has thus, been primarily
justified on the touchstone of speedy trials to ensure the protection of innocent
civilians.
11.2. A reference has been made to the decision in Narcotics Control Bureau
vs. Kashif, 2024 INSC 1045, by the learned Special Public Prosecutor for the
respondent NCB, more particularly, paragraph 39 thereof wherein the Hon’ble
Court has summarized its observations. In Kashif, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
has held that while considering the application for bail, the Court must bear in
mind the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act which are mandatory in
nature and recording of findings, as mandated in Section 37, is sine qua non for
granting bail to the accused involved in the offences under the NDPS Act.
11.3. Another decision wherein the learned Special Public Prosecutor for the
respondent NCB has placed reliance is Jayshree Kanabar vs. State of
Maharashtra and others, 2025 INSC 13. The crime case involved was registered
for offences punishable under Sections 320/120B/201/212 of the IPC, Sections
3/25 of the Arms Act, Section 37[1][3] read with Section 135 of the
Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 and Sections 3[1][ii]/3[2]/3[4] of the Maharashtra
Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 [‘the MCOCA’, for short]. Two of the
accused were granted bail by the High Court and the said order of bail was
challenged before Hon’ble Supreme Court. Like Section 37[1][b] of the NDPS
Page No.# 12/21
Act, there are similar twin conditions in Section 21[4] of the MCOCA. The
Hon’ble Supreme Court has found that when the High Court considered and
granted bail to the two accused, observations, partaking the character of
findings on the merits of the case, were made bypassing the rigours in and the
twin conditions incorporated in Section 21[4] of the MCOCA.
11.4. In Special Leave to Appeal [Crl.] no. 4169/2023 [Rabi Prakash vs. The
State of Odisha], decided on 13.07.2023, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India,
with regard to the twin conditions contained in Section 37 of the NDPS Act, has
observed that the first condition stands complied with when the Public
Prosecutor is heard. It has further observed that so far as the second condition
i.e. formation of opinion as to whether there are reasonable grounds to believe
that the petitioner is not guilty, the same may not be formed at beyond a stage
when the accused person had already spent more than three and a half years in
custody. Observing so, it has been held that the prolonged incarceration
generally, militates against the most precious fundamental right guaranteed
under Article 21 of the Constitution and in such a situation, the conditional
liberty must override the statutory embargo created under Section 37[1][b][ii]
of the NDPS Act.
11.5. In Petition for Special leave to Appeal [Crl.] no. 3961/2022 [Abdul
Majeed Lone vs. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir], decided on
01.08.2022, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India finding the period of
incarceration of the accused person therein for a period of over two years and
five months since 01.03.2020, directed the release of the accused person on
bail, subject to such terms and conditions which the concerned trial Court shall
Page No.# 13/21
deem fit and find appropriate to impose upon him.
11.6. In Criminal Appeal no. 1169/2022 [Gopal Krishna Patra @
Golaprusma vs. Union of India], decided on 25.01.2022, the accused person
was in custody since 18.06.2020 and was facing charges for the offences
punishable under Sections 8/20/27-AA/28 read with Section 29 of the NDPS Act.
Observing that a case for bail is made out due to the length of custody
undergone by the accused therein, the accused was allowed to be released on
bail, subject to imposition of such conditions as the trial Court deems
appropriate to impose.
11.7. In Petition[s] for Special Leave to Appeal [Crl.] no. 5769/2022 [Nitish
Adhikary @ Bapan vs. The State of West Bengal], decided on 01.08.2022, the
petitioner sought release on bail wherein he was inter alia facing charges under
Section 21[c] of the NDPS Act and had undergone custody for a period of 1
[one] year and 7 [seven] months as on 09.06.2022. The said accused person
was allowed to go on bail subject to him furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction
of the trial Court.
11.8. In Criminal Appeal no. 245/2020 [Chitta Biswas Alias Subhas vs. The
State of West Bengal], decided on 07.02.2022, the accused person was
undergoing custody for offences punishable under Section 21-C of the NDPS
Act. The accused who was arrested on 21.07.2018, was allowed to be released
on bail, subject to furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- with two
like sureties to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court and the learned trial
Court was allowed to impose such other conditions as it deemed appropriate to
Page No.# 14/21
ensure the presence and participation of the accused in the pending trial.
11.9. In Criminal Appeal no. 1570/2021 [Mahmood Kurdeya vs. Narcotics
Control Bureau], decided on 07.12.2021, the accused person, a Syrian national
living in Delhi as a refugee since 2015, was in custody since 27.09.2018, that is,
for a period of three years and three months. Prior to arrest of the accused
person another Turkish citizen was arrested on 24.09.2018 by the NCB after
apprehending him at the Indira Gandhi International Airport for smuggling large
no. of narcotics and psychotropic drugs including thousands of tables of
Tramadol X-225. The allegation against the accused person, Mahmood Kurdeya
was to the effect that he gave the Turkish citizen drugs on 23.09.2018. The
Hon’ble Supreme Court was persuaded to pass an Order for release of the
petitioner for the reason that despite the rigor of Section 37 of the NDPS Act
and despite submission of charge-sheet on 23.09.2018 even the charges were
not framed and the trial did not commence.
11.10. In Special Leave to Appeal [Crl.] No. 4648/2024 [Ankur Chaudhary vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh] decided on 28.05.2024, the petitioner was in custody
for more than two years for an offence punishable under Section 8 read with
Section 22 and Section 29 of the NDPS Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has
observed in that case that failure to conclude the trial within a reasonable time
resulting in prolonged incarceration militates against the precious fundamental
right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and as such,
conditional liberty overriding the statutory embargo created under Section 37[1]
[b] of the NDPS Act can, in such circumstances, be considered. With such
observations, the bail application of the petitioner, Ankur Chaudhary was
Page No.# 15/21
allowed.
11.11. In Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain vs. State [NCT of Delhi], 2023 INSC 311,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the restrictions placed by Section 37
of the NDPS Act along with the right of the accused to enjoy freedom under
Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The appellant-accused therein who was
about 23 years of age, had faced trial for committing offences punishable under
Sections 20, Section 25 and Section 29 of the NDPS Act and in the process, had
suffered incarceration for over seven years. But the criminal trial had hardly
reached the half-way mark. The Hon’ble Supreme Court had found that the
progress of the trial was at a snail’s pace as only thirty witnesses were
examined and thirty more witnesses were yet to be examined despite the period
of incarceration of the appellant for over seven years and four months. It has
been contended by the learned Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent
NCB that the accused-appellant therein was not found in possession of the
contraband. The learned counsel for the petitioners had submitted that it was in
the account of the accused-appellant, the money, allegedly tainted money, was
transferred by two of the co-accused from whom the contraband was seized. In
Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain, it has been observed to the effect that grant of bail
on the ground of undue delay in trial, cannot be said to be fettered by Section
37 of the NDPS Act, given the imperative of Section 436A of the Code [since
replaced by Section 479 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023], which is
applicable to offences under the NDPS Act too [Ref : Satender Kumar Antil vs.
Central Bureau of Investigation, [2022] 10 SCC 51 ]. Having regard to those
factors, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has reached an opinion in the facts of the
said case that the appellant therein would deserve to be enlarged on bail. While
Page No.# 16/21
parting, the Court in Mohd. Muslim [supra] has further observed that the laws
which impose stringent conditions, may be in public interest, for grant of bail;
yet, if trials are not concluded in time, the injustice wrecked on the individual is
immeasurable.
11.12. In K.A. Najeeb [supra], the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that
the statutory restrictions like Section 43D[5] of the Unlawful Activities
[Prevention] Act, 1967 cannot fetter a constitutional court’s ability to grant bail
on ground of violation of fundamental rights.
11.13. It is noticed that in Jayshree Kanabar [supra], the Hon’ble Supreme
Court has found on critical examination of the impugned order granting bail that
the bail was granted to the accused considering the sufficiency or otherwise of
the evidence available on record against them and not on the ground of
violation of Part-III of the Constitution of India. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has
recorded as a fact that the grant of bail was not in exercise of power of the High
Court as a constitutional court on the ground of violation of Part-III of the
Constitution.
11.14. In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar [supra], it has also been observed that even
persons accused of non-bailable offences are entitled for bail if the Court
concerned comes to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish a
prima facie case against him and/or if the Court is satisfied for reasons to be
recorded that in spite of the existence of a prima facie case there is a need to
release such persons on bail where fact situations require it to do so.
Page No.# 17/21
12. From a survey of the aforesaid decisions, it emerges from them that the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India without expressing any opinion on the merits or
demerits of the case, has allowed the prayers for bail of the concerned accused
persons who were facing charges for allegedly committing offences, involving
commercial quantity, under the NDPS Act on consideration of their prolonged
incarceration. In addition, different coordinate benches of this Court have also
followed the same line of reasoning to grant bail to accused persons arrested
under the provisions of the NDPS Act on the ground of prolonged pre-trial
incarceration.
13. Reverting back to the facts of the case in hand, as noticed from the
materials on record, the two petitioners herein were apprehended on
22.05.2020 and were arrested on 23.05.2020. After arrest, they were produced
before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup [Metro], Guwahati
on 24.05.2020. After completion of investigation in connection with NCB Crime
Case no. 08 of 2020, the Offence Report under Section 36[1][d], NDPS Act was
submitted on 17.11.2020.
14. After submission of the complaint, the case, NDPS Case no. 89 of 2020
was registered. In the complaint, one of the four charge-sheeted accused
persons, namely, Ramu Ghosh was shown as an absconder. The learned Special
Court had recorded that the trial was getting delayed because of the non-
appearance of the absconding accused, Ramu Ghosh and by an Order passed
on 01.02.2024, the learned Special Court split up the trial of the said absconding
accused, Ramu Ghosh, posting the case on 03.02.2024 for framing of charges
against the remaining three accused persons. One of the charge-sheeted
Page No.# 18/21
accused persons, Murshid Alam was allowed to go on bail by an Order dated
14.03.2024 passed in a bail application, registered as Petition no. 2127 of 2023,
preferred by him. Thereafter, on 09.07.2024, charges were framed against the
two petitioners herein. It has been submitted at the Bar that the charge-sheeted
accused person, Murshid Alam, who was released on bail on 14.03.2024, has
also been discharged by the learned Special Court. After framing of the charges,
the charges were read over and explained to the accused persons, that is, the
petitioners, who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. As a result, the trial
of NDPS Case no. 89 of 2020 had, thereafter, proceeded to the stage of
recording evidence.
15. After the charges were framed, the case, NDPS Case no. 89 of 2020
was posted on a number of subsequent dates, 19.08.2024, 04.10.2024 &
20.11.2024 for recording of evidence of the prosecution witnesses. In the
complaint submitted on 17.11.2020, the prosecution side named eleven nos. of
witnesses as prosecution witnesses in order to bring home the charge against
the accused persons. In addition, it has in its list of documents, mentioned
about 34 [thirty four] nos. of documents, running into 279 pages, which it
would exhibit during the trial. It is relevant to note that out of the 11 [eleven]
nos. of listed witnesses, 9 [nine] of them are official witnesses and the
remaining 2 [two] are independent witnesses.
16. The learned counsel for the parties are not in dispute at the Bar that till
date, no witness has turned up to depose before the learned Special Court in
the trial of NDPS Case no. 89 of 2020. Meaning thereby, the prosecution side
has not been able to examine any one from its list of witnesses, not even the
Page No.# 19/21
official witnesses.
17. Since 23.05.2020, both the petitioners are in incarceration till date and
their period of incarceration is more than 4 [four] years and 7 [seven] months.
The incarceration is indeed a prolonged one, which establishes that the personal
liberty of the two petitioners are being jeopardized resulting violation of their
fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. As
no witness has yet been examined, an early conclusion of the trial is not in sight
in the near future. An inordinate delay in conclusion of trial, which appears to be
inevitable in the case in hand, has infringed the right of the two petitioners
herein as the accused under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Thus, such
prolonged incarceration of more than 4 [four] years and 7 [seven] months,
which militate against the fundamental right of personal liberty guaranteed
under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, has the effect of overriding the
rigours created in the provision of Section 37[1][d][ii] of the NDPS Act. As a
result, a case for bail of the two petitioners is found to be made out, subject to
appropriate terms and conditions.
18. For the above stated reasons, it is provided that the two petitioners
herein who are standing trial in connection with NDPS Case no. 89 of 2020, that
is, [i] the petitioner, Chandra Vir in B.A. no. 1564/2024; and [ii] the petitioner,
Rajeev Upadhay @ Rajeev Upadhayay in B.A. no. 1868/2024 are allowed to be
released on bail of Rs. 50,000/- [Rupees fifty thousand] each with two sureties
of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Special Court, Kamrup
[Metro], Guwahati, subject to the following conditions :-
Page No.# 20/21
[i] the two petitioners shall regularly appear in the trial before the learned
Special Court, Kamrup [Metro], Guwahati on all dates to be fixed from time
to time till the case is disposed of;
[ii] the two petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of the learned Special
Court, Kamrup [Metro], Guwahati without prior permission and when such
leave is granted by the learned Special Court, the petitioners shall submit
their leave addresses before the learned Special Court;
[iii] the two petitioners shall provide the photocopies of their Adhaar Card,
driving licence, PAN Card, etc. before the learned Special court;
[iv] the two petitioners shall inform the Investigating Officer of the NCB the
addresses where they shall reside during the period they remain enlarged
on bail;
[v] each of the petitioners shall use only one mobile number, during the
period they remain on bail and shall inform their mobile numbers to the
Investigating officer of the NCB;
[vi] the two petitioners shall ensure that their mobile phones remain active
round the clock so that they remain constantly accessible throughout the
period they remain on bail;
[vii] the two petitioners shall not directly or indirectly, make nay
inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of
the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to
any police officer; and[viii] the two petitioners shall maintain law and order and they shall not
commit any offence similar to the offence of which they are accused, or of
the commission of which they are suspected.
Page No.# 21/21
19. In the event there is any breach of any of these conditions or any other
condition that may be imposed by the learned Special Court independently,
liberty for which is hereby granted, it would be open to the prosecution to seek
cancellation of bail granted to the petitioners before the learned Special Court
only, without any further reference to this Court.
20. With the observations made and the directions given above, both the
applications stand disposed of.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant