In an NDPS bail application involving commercial quantity of contraband, the High Court declined bail noting trial halt due to an absconding co-accused. It directed segregation for non-absconding accused but held that under NDPS rigors, the High Court cannot grant bail at this stage.
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
GAHC010006842021
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Bail Appln./166/2021
LONGJAM BROJEN @ LONGJAM BROJEN SINGH S/O LONGJAM MANI SINGH, R/O URIPOK ACHOM LEIKEI, IMPHAL, MANIPUR 795001
VERSUS
THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY STANDING COUNSEL, NARCOTIC CONTROL BUREAU
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR D TALUKDAR
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, NCB
Page No.# 2/3
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HITESH KUMAR SARMA
ORDER
Date : 03-03-2021
Heard Mr. D Talukdar, learned counsel for the accused-petitioner. Also heard the learned standing counsel, NCB, Mr. SC Keyal, assisted by Ms. P Das, learned counsel.
This is an application, filed under Section 439 of the Cr.PC. seeking bail of the accusedpetitioner, namely, Longjam Brojen @ Longjam Brojen Singh, in connection with NDPS Case No. 04/2020, corresponding to NCB Crime No. 10/2019 , registered under Sections 22(C)/29 of the NDPS Act, 1985.
Mr. Talukdar, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the accusedpetitioner has been languishing in judicial custody since 28.07.2019. He has further submitted that charge-sheet in the case was laid on 22.01.2020. It has also been submitted and has also come out from the records, available before this Court that one of the accused person, after he was granted interim bail by this Court on special ground has not surrendered and as such, he is absconding.
In the instant case, out of the 6 (six) accused persons, 5 (five) are in custody. It has come out from the entire materials on record that due to absence/absconding of one of the accused persons, the entire trial has been halted and in the result, the remaining 5 (five) accused persons are in custody without the trial being commenced. For more than a year of lying of charge-sheet, charge has not been taken up for consideration. While this Court is conscious about the fact that allegation against the accused-petitioner and other accused persons in the instant case is in respect of an offence of possessing commercial quantity of contraband and rigors of Section 37(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act applies in such case. However, at the same time, this Court cannot ignore the valuable right of speedy trial of the accusedpetitioner.
Taking into account all the relevant facts in its entirety, this Court is of the view that the learned court below shall segregate the case of this petitioner and other accused persons in custody from the absconding accused person and proceed with the trial after observing all required legal formalities.
Page No.# 3/3
However, in the light of the above discussions and in view of the rigors of Section 37(b) (ii) of the NDPS Act, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the accused-petitioner at this stage. However, the learned court below shall be at liberty to consider the bail application of the petitioner, on merit, if filed before it.
With the above observations and directions, this petition stands disposed of.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail in an NDPS case involving commercial quantity of contraband should be granted given the trial halt caused by an absconding co-accused.
Whether the accumulation of evidence in the presence of all accused is a condition precedent for granting bail in commercial quantity cases.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Longjam Brojen @ Longjam Brojen Singh
The Union of India represented by Standing Counsel, Narcotic Control Bureau
Hitesh Kumar Sarma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
