Dismissed

Ejash Narzary v. the State of Assam

Gauhati HC1 Sept 2022Bail Appln./1108/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court rejected a bail application filed by Ejash Narzary in a commercial quantity NDPS case. Despite the petitioners claim of lack of direct possession, the court held that the seizure of a huge quantity of contraband and statutory provisions under the NDPS Act preclude bail at this stage, citing Nawaz Khan.

What did the court decide?

Bail application rejected; respondent ordered to bear the costs of the application.

Ejash Narzary Vs the State of Assam — Narcotics (NDPS) | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010093872022

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : Bail Appln./1108/2022

¶5

EJASH NARZARY

¶6

S/O SRI PELATUS NARZARY, VILL-GAMBARIBIL, P.S.-RUNIKHATA, DISTCHIRANG (ASSAM), PIN-783385

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM

¶9

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A M AHMED Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM

¶10

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT BORTHAKUR

¶11

ORDER

¶12

01.09.2022

¶13

Heard Mr. A. M. Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for the accused petitioner as well as Mrs. S. H. Bora, learned Addl. P.P., Assam appearing for the State respondent.

¶14

By this petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C., the accused-petitioner, namely, Ejash Narzary, has prayed for grant of bail in connection with Special (NDPS) Case No.06/2022 arising out of Runikhata PS Case No. 88/2021 registered under Sections 22(C)/29 of the N.D.P.S Act.

¶15

The scanned copy of case record along with case diary, as called for, is placed before the

¶16

Page No.# 2/3

¶17

Court.

¶18

Mr. A. M. Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for the accused petitioner, submits that the accused has been in judicial custody for 250 days despite the fact that no contraband was seized from his possession. Mr. Ahmed further submits that the accused is a young youth aged about 21 years and he was no way involved in the alleged occurrence. Mr. Ahmed submits that in view of his prolonged detention and inordinate delay in commencement of trial by framing of the charges in the case, he may be directed to be released on bail subject to any condition.

¶19

Opposing the bail application, Mrs. S. H. Bora, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submits that a huge quantity of Tramadol capsules amounting to commercial quantity was recovered and seized from the joint possession of the present accused and another and further, that the learned court has already framed charges accordingly under Sections 22(c)/29 of the N.D.P.S. Act on 24.08.2022. In this context, Ms. Borah emphasizing on the limitations in granting bail in commercial quantity of contraband relevantly cited the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India vs Md. Nawaz Khan rendered in Criminal Appeal No. 1043 of 2021.

¶20

The case relates to recovery and seizure of total 1392 numbers of SPASMO-PROXYVON ® PLUS Capsules from a black polythin bag which was thrown to the jungle by one suspect Kaniya Basfor, who was the pillion rider of the bike driven by the accused petitioner. After that police conducted search in the house of accused petitioner and Kanya Basfor and both of them were apprehended.

¶21

It is noticed that the accused has been in judicial custody since 22.12.2021, that is, for 253 days.

¶22

Page No.# 3/3

¶23

It is further noticed that the court of learned Special Judge (N.D.P.S. Act), Chirang, after hearing of both sides and consideration of the materials on the case record, has framed charges under Sections 22(C)/29 of the N.D.P.S. Act against the present accused petitioner and another vide order, dated 24.08.2022. The learned trial court on the prayer of the defence side has prepared case calendar for expeditious trial of the case so as to ensure closing of evidence of prosecution side within 08.12.2022. In addition, 25.11.2022 and 28.11.2022 are fixed for examination of witnesses who may likely to be not examined on the aforesaid dates fixed for recording evidence as per case calendar.

¶24

A perusal of the case record does not indicate that the accused petitioner is not guilty of the offense charged and as such, in view of the statutory limitations contained in Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act and as interpreted in paragraph No.19 of the judgment in Nawaz Khan (supra), this Court is of the opinion that at the present stage of trial, if liberty of bail is granted to the accused, the trial of the case may likely to be hampered.

¶25

Therefore, the bail application stands rejected.

¶26

However, it is provided that the accused petitioner shall have liberty to file fresh bail application if so advised.

¶27

This disposes of the bail application.

¶28

JUDGE

¶29

Comparing Assistant

Ejash Narzary v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ejash Narzary 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 Ashok Bhaduri Ashramik Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Amanul Haque Vs the State of Assam

Ajibor Ali and 4 Ors. Vs the State of Assam

Md. Moinul Hoque Vs the State of Assam

Afaz Uddin and 2 Ors. Vs the State of Assam

Ekramul Hoque Vs the State of Assam