Allowed

Thang Liana and Anr. v. the State of Assam

Gauhati HC13 Mar 2019Bail Appln./549/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court allowed bail in an NDPS case. The court held that the seized drug quantity was below the commercial limit, making Section 37 NDPS Act inapplicable. Bail was granted pending the outcome of the larger bench review of the Michael Raj decision.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted to petitioners at ₹25,000 each with two sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.

Thang Liana and Anr. Vs the State of Assam — Narcotics (NDPS) | Gauhati HC (2019)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010054382019

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

¶4

(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln. 549/2019

¶5

1:THANG LIANA AND ANR.

¶6

S/O SAITHANGA, R/O ZOKHAWTHAR, P.S.- ZOKHAWTHAR, DIST.CHAMPHAI, MIZORAM. 2: SUILIAN THANGA @ SUILIM THANGA S/O THANGTIN SAWNA R/O BANGLAI CHAMPHAI P.S.- CHAMPHAI DIST- CHAMPHAI MIZORAM VERSUS 1:THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM

¶7

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S M MOLLAH Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM

¶8

BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE RUMI KUMARI PHUKAN

¶9

ORDER

¶10

Date : 13-03-2019

¶11

By this petition u/s 439 of the CrPC petitioners Thang Liana and Suilian Thanga alias Suilim Thanga sought bail in connection with Special NDPS case 94/2018, corresponding to GRPS case 253/ 2018 u/s 22(c)/29 of the NDPS Act, 1985, pending in the file of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge I, Kamrup(M).

¶12

Page No.# 2/3

¶13

Heard Mr SM Mollah, learned counsel for petitioners and Mr NK Kalita, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State,

¶14

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioners were arrested on 18.9.2018 and the chargesheet is filed and as the quantity of the drugs seized is commercial their bail prayer was rejected by the learned trial court.

¶15

The FSL report submitted says that one bottle contains 0.175 gm of codeine and in 1095 bottles seized contain a total of 191.6 gm of codeine, which is far below the commercial quantity.

¶16

It is submitted that as the drugs seized is not the commercial quantity, this court may consider the prayer.

¶17

Learned counsel for petitioner referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Michael Raj (2008) 5 SCC 161 to submit that this decision still prevails.

¶18

In terms of the decision of the Apex Court in Snyman Lourens Abraham vs. YM Patil, Intelligence Officer, Air Intelligent Unit of Customs, CS International Airport reported in AIR 2008SC 1720 and Hira Singh vs. Union of India reported in 2017 (8) SCC 160,instead of taking into account the whole content of drugs of whole weight of the

¶19

Page No.# 3/3

¶20

mixture is to be considered. The intention of the legislature was to impose punishment on the basis of the content of the offending drugs. It is held that the actual content of the drugs is relevant for determination whether it would constitute small quantity or commercial quantity. Although subsequently the finding in Michael Raj was referred to a larger Bench in the case of Hira Singh, still the decision in the Michael Raj prevails that until and unless it is decided by the larger Bench.

¶21

In this case the drugs seized is below the commercial quantity and so the rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act will not come.

¶22

Considering the entire aspect and the length of detention and also the undertaking to face trial regularly given by the petitioners they are allowed to go on bail of Rs 25,000 each with two sureties(one of which will be of a govt. official) of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial court. Accordingly the petition is disposed of.

¶23

JUDGE

¶24

Na/

¶25

Comparing Assistant

Thang Liana and Anr. v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thang Liana and Anr. v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Banajyoti Kaudinya and 3 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

MD Hussain Ali Vs Mrs. Rahima Begum

Abed Ali Vs the State of Assam

Nabi Hussain and 2 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Sri Nayan Khodal Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Reema Dutta Vs the State of Assam