This court rejected a second bail application in an NDPS case involving recovery of methamphetamine. The trial was found incomplete with only one witness examined. Granting bail was deemed likely to hamper the remaining trial proceedings.
Bail application rejected; liberty to file fresh application if so advised.
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.# 1/2
GAHC010143642022
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Bail Appln./1751/2022
MD. GANESAN G @ GANESH S/O GOMATHINAYAGAM
R/O 49A, GARDEN 3RD STREET, P.S. ROYAPURAM, CHENNAI STATETAMILNADU.
VERSUS
THE UNION OF INDIA
REP. BY THE STANDING COUNSEL OF NARCOTIC CONTROL BUREAU.
Advocate for the Petitioner : G UDDIN
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, NCB
BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT BORTHAKUR
ORDER
Date : 06.09.2022
Heard Mr. G. Uddin, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. C. Keyal, learned Standing Counsel, NCB.
By this second petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C., the accused petitioner, namely, Md. Ganesan G @ Ganesh, has prayed for grant of bail in connection with NDPS Case No. 131/2021 u/s 8(C)/22(C)(ii)/29 of the NDPS Act (corresponding to NCB Case No. 6/2021 ).
The scanned copy of the case record along with the FSL report, as called for, is
Page No.# 2/2
placed before this Court.
It is noticed that the earlier bail application of the accused petitioner, being Bail Appln No. 291/2022, was rejected by this Court vide order, dated 26.04.2022.
The matter relates to recovery and seizure of Methamphetamine (in crystal form), weighing 10.276 kg, from the possession of the FIR named accused persons.
The accused petitioner, who is a resident of Tamil Nadu, has been in judicial custody since 15.09.2021, i.e. for 356 days.
A perusal of the case record reveals that the learned Trial Court framed charges under Section 22(c)/29 of the NDPS Act against the accused petitioner and others. Thereafter, the learned Trial Court has not examined any prosecution witness, out of 15 listed witnesses. One co-accused has implicated the present petitioner with the offence alleged.
Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that if the liberty of bail is granted to the accused petitioner at the present incomplete stage of trial of the case, the remaining part of trial of the case may likely to be hampered.
For the above stated reasons, the bail application stands rejected.
It is, however, provided that the accused petitioner shall have the liberty to file fresh bail application, if so advised.
It is further provided that the learned Trial Court shall make an endeavour to dispose of the case expeditiously in accordance with law.
This disposes of the bail application.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the accused petitioner in an NDPS case where the trial is at an incomplete stage and a co-accused has implicated the petitioner.
Whether the pendency of the trial would be hampered if bail is granted at the present stage.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
MD. GANESAN G @ GANESH
THE UNION OF INDIA
AJIT BORTHAKUR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
