Allowed

Guljar Hussain v. The State of Mizoram

Gauhati HC13 Sept 2022Bail Appln./13/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under the NDPS Act, the Gauhati High Court granted bail to the petitioner, a vehicle driver arrested for suspected drug trafficking. The Court held that custody could not be justified without recovery of drugs or evidence of habitual offending.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted on furnishing bond of Rs. 1 lakh with one local surety, reporting to police every 15 days, and not committing further offenses.

Guljar Hussain Vs The State of Mizoram — Narcotics (NDPS) | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/5

¶2

GAHC030004072022

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

¶4

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

¶5

Case No. : Bail Appln./13/2022

¶6

Guljar Hussain Assam VERSUS The State of Mizoram Aizawl

¶7

Advocate for the Petitioner : Ms Dinari T Azyu

¶8

Advocate for the Respondent : P.P./Addl.PP, Mizoram

¶9

ORDER

¶10

BEFORE

¶11

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NELSON SAILO

¶12

13.09.2022

¶13

Heard Mr. K. Roland, learned counsel for the petitioner, who submits that the

¶14

petitioner was arrested on 24.04.2022 by the police in connection with Sairang P.S

¶15

Case No. 10/2022, registered under Section 28/29 of the ND&PS Act, 1985. He

¶16

submits that the petitioner is the driver of a Maruti Suzuki S-Presso vehicle bearing

¶17

registration No. AS 10 E 9285. On 24.04.2022, the petitioner travelled from Karimganj

¶18

to Aizawl carrying 3 passengers. After dropping them at Company peng, Aizawl, he

¶19

Page No.# 2/5

¶20

was on his way back to Karimganj on the same day. In the process, he met one Sh. Shifar Uddin, who was also planning to go back to Karimganj from Aizawl and the latter boarded the vehicle the petitioner was driving. When they reached Buichali bridge, they were apprehended by a police personnel for reasons not known to them. Later on, they were suspected to be involved in connection with Sairang P.S Case No. 10/2022 under Section 28/29 of the ND&PS Act, 1985. Since then, the petitioner has been in custody until he filed Bail Application No. 728/2022. While the bail application was being considered, the police filed an application before the learned Special Court under ND&PS Act, Aizawl praying for addition of charge under Section 21 (c) of the ND&PS Act, 1985. The same was allowed vide order dated 07.07.2022 and on the same day, the bail application of the petitioner came to be rejected, in view of the addition of the new charge under Section 21 (c) of the ND&PS Act, 1985.

¶21

[2.] Ms. Mary L. Khiangte, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor on the other hand submits that after diligent enquiry conducted by the police, it is revealed that the petitioner is a part of a well organized inter-state drug traffickers and that in order to uncover the drug trafficking, the petitioner is required to be kept in custody. She further submits that the petitioner is not a permanent resident of the State of Mizoram and therefore if they are released on bail, it would be very difficult to secure his presence during the trial. She thus submits that in view of the fact that the allegation against the petitioner being of serious nature, he may not be released on bail.

¶22

[3.] I have heard the submissions made by the learned counsels for the rival parties

¶23

Page No.# 3/5

¶24

and I have perused the materials available on record, including the Case Diary produced by the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor. From the materials available on record, it is seen that it is the case of the police that they received a reliable intelligence input on 24.04.2022 at around 4 pm that there was a movement of a large quantity of Methamphetamine within Aizawl city and the potential buyers for the said drugs were some non local persons coming in a vehicle from Silchar, Assam. The consignment of the drugs was to be picked up somewhere between Rangvamual and Phunchawng to Buichali area. During the investigation, the potential buyer was believed to be travelling in a Maruti Suzuki S-Presso vehicle bearing registration No. AS 10 E 9285 (white colour). The said consignment was to be picked up by 2 (two) persons by the name of Guljar Hussain (present petitioner) and Shifar Uddin. When the police party intercepted the said vehicle, they did not find any drugs in their possession. At around 10 pm, one truck bearing registration No. MZ 01 S 5512 coming from Aizawl side was strongly suspected to come with the consignment of the drugs and it was intercepted and the vehicle was detained. The driver of the truck and the passenger Lalsangpuii were taken to Sairang Police Station along with the vehicle but no drugs were recovered from their possession after thorough search. Thus, in connected with the Sairang P.S Case No. 10/2022, all together 6 (six) persons have been arrested. The present petitioner as already indicated herein above have been in custody since his arrest and detention on 25.04.2022.

¶25

Page No.# 4/5

¶26

[4.] From a perusal of the Case Diary, it is seen that the statements of the arrested

¶27

persons have been recorded by the police under Section 161 Cr.PC wherein, there is indication that some contraband goods was scheduled to be transported during the relevant time. However, the fact remains that no recovery of the alleged drugs or any contraband substance has been made by the police, either from the person, the vehicle or any other place. The addition of Section 21 (c) of the ND&PS Act is also not based on any recovery made or weighment taken about any seized contraband substance. As stated in the application filed by the police, it was on the ground of belief that the consignment sought to be intercepted was a large quantity and it was on that basis that the said Section was added. Therefore, the question which arises to be considered is as to whether the petitioner can be kept in custody solely on the basis of assumption that they are involved in the transportation of drugs/contraband substances while no recovery has been made from any quarter. The High Court of Delhi while considering Bail Application No. 1189/2020 (Amit Ranjan -Vs- Narcotics Control Bureau, Delhi) of the persons who were charged under Section 8 (c), 23 and 29 and also, 21 (c) of the ND&PS Act, vide judgment dated 23.05.2022 in the given facts of that case held that there having been no recovery of any alleged narcotic or psychotropic substances of a commercial quantity from the applicant, the Court was satisfied that there were no reasonable ground for belief that the applicant is not guilty of the commission of the offense particularly in view of the clean antecedent of the applicant. Accordingly, bail was granted to the applicant.

¶28

Page No.# 5/5

¶29

[5.] Similarly, in the present case, there no materials on record to show that the alleged drugs was recovered and also that the petitioner have past criminal record and a habitual offender, particularly in respect of the offenses under the ND&PS Act. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail. Accordingly, subject to the following conditions:-

¶30

(1) Bail is granted to the petitioner on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 1 lakh with one

¶31

local surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Special Court under ND&PS Act, Aizawl.

¶32

(2) The petitioner shall cooperate with the Investigating Authority and shall report to the police concerned as and when required to do so. Even otherwise, he shall report to the Sairang police station at every 15 days interval.

¶33

(3) While on bail, the petitioner shall not in any way indulge himself in commission of any offense punishable under any criminal law including the ND&PS Act, 1985.

¶34

[6.] With the above observations and directions, the Bail Application stands disposed of as allowed.

¶35

JUDGE

¶36

Comparing Assistant

Guljar Hussain v. The State of Mizoram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Guljar Hussain v. The State of Mizoram

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

Sh. Lalnuntluanga Vs Union of India and 6 Ors.

Sakir Uddin Vs State of Mizoram

Smt. a. Vanlalzawni and Anr. Vs Dr. Renu Sharma and 4 Ors.

Hussain Ahmed Laskar and Anr. Vs The State of Mizoram

Shifar Uddin Vs The State of Mizoram

Lallawmthanga and 2 Ors. Vs Ladc And 5 Ors.