The Gauhati High Court rejected a second bail application under Section 439 CrPC filed under the NDPS Act. The court held that complicity was made out and trial should be expedited to three months.
Bail petition dismissed; direction to trial Court to expedite hearing and conclude proceedings within three months.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010110102020
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Bail Appln./1668/2020
LACHIT BORA
S/O SRI PUTUL CHANDRA BORA, R/O VILL. AND P.O. MAJ PATHORI, P.S. NAGAON SADAR, DIST. NAGAON, ASSAM
VERSUS
THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU, GUWAHATI
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR Z KAMAR
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, NCB
BEFORE
HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE RUMI KUMARI PHUKAN
O R D E R
17-11-2020.
The petitioner Lachit Bora is facing the trial before the learned Addl. Special Judge No.1, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati and on the earlier occasion, this Court rejected his bail prayer on 08.01.2020 in Bail Application No.4034/2019, with a direction to the learned trial Court to expedite the hearing and complete of the trial preferably within three months from the date of order.
By filing the present/second bail petition under Section 439 of the CrPC, the petitioner has again
Page No.# 2/3
approached this Court for releasing him on regular bail in connection with the Special (NDPS) Case No.01/2019 (corresponding to NCB Crime No.12/2018), under Sections 8(C)/21(C) of the NDPS Act, as the hearing is not yet completed and he is under long detention w.e.f. 25.03.2019.
Heard the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned standing counsel for the Narcotic Control Bureau (NCB).
The learned counsel for the petitioner primarily contended that as nothing was recovered from the possession of the accused person, he cannot be implicated in the present case only on the basis of statement of the co- accused, recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act. The statement of five witnesses, already examined by the prosecution has been annexed who has not specifically implicated the present accused person.
The decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in Kumar @ Ranjithkumar vs. State reported in 2019 Cri.L.J. 4312, the decision of our High Court in Basanta Saikia vs. State of Assam, reported in 2020(3) GLT 239 and the order passed on 06.10.2020, in Bail Application No.1636/2020 have also been pressed into in support of his contention.
The learned standing counsel for the NCB, on the other hand vehemently objected against the bail prayer and has submitted that due to lock down period, the direction of this Court for expedite hearing could not be followed but they are ready to expedite the hearing in terms of the earlier order. The learned standing counsel further submits that the matter relates to commercial quantity and the complicity of the petitioner is made out and the prosecution is to examine several other witnesses in the case and release of the accused amidst the trial will hamper the case. Further the learned counsel submits that the decisions referred above by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not applicable in the present case and as the case is no solely rest on the confession of the co-accused.
I have gone through the materials on record and the objection raised by the NCB. Apart from the witnesses so far examined, several other witnesses are to be examined by the prosecution and the complicity of the accused is stated to be made out.
Having regard to the materials on record and the fact that this Court on the earlier occasion also not inclined to grant bail after framing of charge and directed the trial Court to dispose of the matter and the objection raised by the respondent NCB cannot be discarded.
Considering all entirety of the matter, the present bail petition stands disposed of with a direction to the trial Court that as by this time the regular Court work has been resumed, so the prosecution will produce all the witnesses in a time bound manner and the learned trial Court will expedite the hearing
Page No.# 3/3
JUDGE
of the case by taking day to day hearing, keeping in view that the accused is facing the trial from behind the bar and conclude the proceeding within a period of three months from today.
The bail petition stands dismissed with the aforesaid direction.
Comparing Assistant
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner, facing trial on commercial quantity charges, should be granted bail despite co-accused statements.
Whether the ongoing lockdown and incomplete prosecution witnesses justify granting bail under the NDPS Act.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Kumar @ Ranjithkumar vs. StateReferred¶20
Kumar @ Ranjithkumar vs. State reported in 2019 Cri.L.J. 4312 · Who else cites this
Basanta Saikia vs. State of AssamReferred¶20
Basanta Saikia vs. State of Assam, reported in 2020(3) GLT 239
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Lachit Bora
The Union of India represented by Narcotics Control Bureau, Guwahati
Rumi Kumari Phukan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
