Allowed

Tanchung Namsa v. the State of Ap

Gauhati HC4 Nov 2022BA/109/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court allowed a bail application filed by Tanchung Namsa for Smti. Rinchin Pema, an accused under the NDPS Act. She was apprehended as a passenger in a drug-laden vehicle. The court granted bail citing the length of detention and her role as a mother.

What did the court decide?

Accused Smti. Rinchin Pema enlarged on bail of Rs. 25,000/- with suitable surety before Special Judge (NDPS), Bomdila.

Tanchung Namsa Vs the State of Ap — Narcotics (NDPS) | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC040012972022

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : BA 109/2022

¶5

1:Tanchung Namsa Son of Later Karma Norbu,

¶6

Resident of Hill Top, ESS Sector, Itanagar, PO and PS Itanagar, Papum Pare District, Arunachal Pradesh.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

1:THE STATE OF AP Represented by the Public Prosecutor.

¶9

Advocate for the Petitioner : G Taloh

¶10

Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP

¶11

BEFORE

¶12

HONBLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND

¶13

ORDER

¶14

Date : 04-11-2022

¶15

This is an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant for grant of bail to the accused, namely, Smti. Rinchin Pema in connection with Rupa P.S. Case No.11/2022 under Section 20 (b) (c) of the NDPS Act, 1985. (The NDPS Act for short).

¶16

Heard Mr. G. Taloh, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. J.

¶17

Page No.# 2/4

¶18

Tsering, learned PP representing the State of Arunachal Pradesh.

¶19

It is submitted that the accused was arrested in connection with the aforesaid case on 19.05.2022 and since then she has been languishing in the jail custody. During her custody, she was also accorded interim bail for a period of 2^½ months to attend to her ailing child who is about 2^½ years old. Thereafter, she was again taken into custody. It is submitted that the accused is not involved in this case. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the accused had taken a lift in a car, wherefrom, she was apprehended in connection with this case. She was travelling as a passenger. It is further submitted that personal liberty cannot be curtailed on the sole purpose to nab the co-accused. In this case, the driver is not even the co-accused because the accused is not involved in drug peddling or transportation of contraband substances. The accused has been languishing in the jail custody for a period of 99 days.

¶20

The case unfolded from the FIR is that on 18.05.2022 during a naka checking at Nagmandir check gate, a vehicle with a smashed windshield was caught by the police. When the police tried to intercept the driver, the driver, turned around and the police pursued the driver but he fled, while the accused was found inside the car with a baby. Suspected cannabis weighing 98 Kgs was recovered from the vehicle.

¶21

The accused was found inside the vehicle bearing registration No. AS-07E-1768 of Alto LXI make.

¶22

Transporting of drugs is a serious offence and indeed the accused is

¶23

Page No.# 3/4

¶24

booked under Section 20 (c) of the NDPS Act. The accused was already interrogated and she has been behind bars for a period of 99 days.

¶25

The learned PP has not raised objection agaisnt granting of bail to the accused under Section 439 Cr.P.C. Considering the length of detention and the fact that the accused is a mother of a 2^½ year old child as well as considering the fact that the investigation has progressed considerably, I deem it proper to enlarge the accused on bail.

¶26

Considering all aspects, this Bail Application is allowed. The accused, namely, Smti. Rinchin Pema in connection with Rupa P.S. Case No.11/2022 under Section 20 (b) (c) of the NDPS Act, 1985 is allowed to go on bail of Rs.25,000/- with suitable surety of like amount to the satisfaction of learned Special Judge (NDPS), Bomdila, West Kameng District.

¶27

The above privilege is, however, subject to following conditions:-

¶28

(i) that the accused shall appear before the concerned I.O. as and when required;

¶29

(ii) that the accused shall not, directly or indirectly, make any 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;

¶30

(iii) that the accused shall not leave the jurisdictional Magistrate of learned Special Judge (NDPS), Bomdila, West Kameng District, Arunachal Pradesh, without prior permission; and

¶31

(iv) She shall refrain from such activities.

¶32

Page No.# 4/4

¶33

In terms of the above, this Anticipatory Bail application stands disposed of.

¶34

JUDGE

¶35

Comparing Assistant

Tanchung Namsa v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tanchung Namsa v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Elijah @ Eliza Taying and 2 Ors. Vs the State of Ap

Rinya Jokom Vs the State of Ap

Aka Kalung Vs the State of Ap and 6 Ors.

Jobom Chang Mengu Vs the State of Ap

Gumin Darung Vs the State of Ap

Kushadev Mahanta Vs the State of Assam and Anr.