Dismissed

Penjon Daimari and Anr. v. the Union of India

Gauhati HC3 Feb 2021Bail Appln./116/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this third bail application under the NDPS Act, the court refused bail as there is no material to record satisfaction under section 37 and the commercial quantity of contraband is alleged. The court observed that the trial should be expedited and directed the petitioner to approach the trial judge for same.

What did the court decide?

Bail application closed; Directed petitioner to move Special Judge for expediting trial.

Penjon Daimari and Anr. Vs the Union of India — Narcotics (NDPS) | Gauhati HC (2021)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010004192021

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

Case No. : Bail Appln./116/2021

¶5

PENJON DAIMARI AND ANR

¶6

S/O LATE UMESH DAIMARI, R/O KAHIBARI, BEKIGAON, PS UDALGURI, DIST. UDALGURI, ASSAM

¶7

2: SANJIB DAIMARI S/O NIREN DAIMARI R/O KAHIBARI BEKIGAON PS UDALGURI DIST. UDALGURI ASSA

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

THE UNION OF INDIA REP. BY THE SC, NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU

¶10

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. C K NATH

¶11

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, NCB

¶12

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA

¶13

ORDER

¶14

Date : 03-02-2021

¶15

Heard Mr. S. Munir, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Ms. P. Das, learned counsel

¶16

Page No.# 2/3

¶17

appearing on behalf of the Standing counsel, NCB i.e. the respondent herein.

¶18

This is the 3^rd bail application by the petitioner in connection with NDPS case no.1/2020 which is pending for trial before the Court of learned Special Judge-cum-Additional Session Judge, Kamrup, Rangia.

¶19

At the outset it may be mentioned herein that while dismissing the BA 1186/2020 by order dated 16.10.2020 this Court had recorded that there was no material before this Court to record satisfaction as per requirement of section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act, 1985 for which the prayer for releasing the petitioners on bail was rejected and the same position continues till today. It may be mentioned herein that the commercial quantity of contraband narcotic is alleged to have been recovered from the petitioners and hence, the Court is not inclined to grant bail.

¶20

The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners have challenged the statement recorded under section 67 of the NDPS Act, by filing petition no.742/2020 and 743/2020 which is pending for disposal before the learned Civil Judge. He further submits that the charge sheet has already been submitted before the learned trial Court. However, the charges have not yet been framed. It is submitted that notwithstanding the pendency of adjudication of petition nos.742/2020 and 743/2020, the learned Special Judge ought to have been proceeded with the framing of charges.

¶21

On a pointed query of this Court that if charges are framed despite petition nos.742/2020 and 743/2020 whether the petition would be prejudiced and on such query, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits on instructions that the petitioners would not be prejudiced if the trial proceeds at the stage of framing of charges.

¶22

The learned counsel for the petitioners had submitted that as on date, the petitioners are on a judicial custody since 523 days as on date and therefore, he prays for a direction that the trial be expedited. In this connection, the Court is reminded of the observation made by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Achint Navinbhai Patel Alias Mahesh Shah Vs. State of Gujarat, (2002) 9 SCC 529, wherein reference has been made of the case of Re: The Special Courts Bill 1978 (1979) 1 SCC 380 and Ganesh Narayan Hegde Vs. S. Bangarappa, (1995) 4 SCC 41 and it was observed that “...apart from the directions in this very case, it has been repeatedly stressed that NDPS cases should be tried as early as possible because in such cases normally accused are not released on bail...”. We need not say any further as the Court is presently only considering the bail application.

¶23

Accordingly, the learned counsel for the petitioners is at liberty to move the learned Special

¶24

Page No.# 3/3

¶25

Judge, Kamrup to expedite the trial.

¶26

Accordingly, with the above observation, this bail application stands closed.

¶27

JUDGE

¶28

Comparing Assistant

Penjon Daimari and Anr. v. the Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Penjon Daimari and Anr. v. the Union of India

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

Smti Usha Rani Paul @ Usha Paul and Anr. Vs Sri Tapas Paul and 3 Ors.

Md. Fakrul Islam Beg Vs Abdul Gafur Borbhuiyan

Sri Badan Gogoi and 3 Ors. Vs Tuleswar Gogoi

Ratan Kr. Das Vs Tata Aig General Insurance Co. Ltd. and 2 Ors.

M/S Padmesh Beverages Vs Assam Power Distribution Company Limited and 3 Ors.

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Talibun Nessa Borbhuiya