Dismissed

Dhiraj Kumar v. the State of Assam

Gauhati HC20 Jul 2022Bail Appln./331/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court considered a bail application by Dhiraj Kumar in a special trial under the NDPS Act for 44.100 kg of ganja. Rejecting the argument regarding unauthorized seizure, the court held that granting bail might hamper the trial. It dismissed the application but allowed a fresh filing before the trial court.

What did the court decide?

Applications for bail rejected; liberty granted to file a new application before the trial court.

Dhiraj Kumar Vs the State of Assam — Narcotics (NDPS) | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010025752022

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : Bail Appln./331/2022

¶5

DHIRAJ KUMAR S/O RAM RAVESH MUKHIYA R/O CHALAND CHANDAN P.O. SOMBA, P.S. BITHAN DIST. SAMASTIPUR, BIHAR

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM

¶8

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR N AHMED Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM

¶9

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT BORTHAKUR

¶10

ORDER

¶11

20.07.2022

¶12

Heard Mr. N. J. Dutta, learned counsel for the accused petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. B. Gogoi, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State/respondent.

¶13

By this petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C., the petitioner, namely, Dhiraj Kumar, has prayed for grant of bail in connection with Special NDPS Trial No. 04/2021 u/s 22((C) and 29 of NDPS Act (corresponding to Kokrajhar PS Case No. 185/2021) pending in the court of learned Special Judge (NDPS Act), Kokrajhar, Assam

¶14

Page No.# 2/3

¶15

The scanned copy of case record, as called for, is placed before this Court.

¶16

Mr. N. J. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the accused petitioner, submits that in the instant case, the accused has been languishing in custody for more than 11 months since he was remanded on 16.03.2019 despite being innocent. Mr. Dutta submits that no article was in fact recovered from his possession and further, that as his two co-accused persons are already on bail, the present petitioner may also be granted bail on parity.

¶17

Vehemently opposing the bail application, Mr. B.B.Gogoi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submits that 44.100 kg of ganja was seized from the joint possession of the present accused and two others while they were transporting in a vehicle and the F.S.L., Assam, in its chemical analysis report confirmed its sample to be cannabis. Mr. Gogoi also submits that after completion of investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet on 15.07.2021 and accordingly, charges under Sections 22(C)/29 of the N.D.P.S. Act were framed against the present accused and another while another accused was found to be juvenile delinquent and accordingly, the case is presently pending in evidence stage. Mr. Gogoi, therefore, submits that the case being of serious nature involving commercial quantity of ganja, the bail application of the accused petitioner may not be accepted.

¶18

The matter relates to recovery and seizure of 44 kg 100 gram of ganja from the possession of the accused petitioner and others.

¶19

A perusal of the case record reveals that the learned trial court has so far examined 03 (three) prosecution witnesses out of 09 (nine) listed witnesses of the charge-sheet and the remaining material witnesses are yet to be examined in the case.

¶20

Page No.# 3/3

¶21

With regard to the submission made by Mr. Dutta, the learned counsel for the accused petitioner to the effect that the seizing police officer and the informant person were not authorized as required under Section 53 of the N.D.P.S. Act, this Court is of the view that since it is an issue on merit of the case, the accused petitioner may raise this issue during the trial of the case, if so advised.

¶22

In the above backdrop of facts and evidence so far adduced by the prosecution in the case, this Court is of the opinion that if the liberty of bail is granted to the accused petitioner, who hails from Bihar state, the remaining part of fair and speedy trial of the case may likely to be hampered.

¶23

Therefore, the bail application stands rejected.

¶24

However, the accused petitioner is given liberty to file bail application afresh before the learned trial court, if so advised and if such an application is filed, the same shall be considered and disposed of at an appropriate stage of trial in accordance with law.

¶25

Return the case diary.

¶26

This disposes of the bail application.

¶27

JUDGE

¶28

Comparing Assistant

Dhiraj Kumar v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhiraj Kumar 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raju Debnath Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Subodh Kumar Vs the State of Assam

Ratna Ram and Anr. Vs the State of Assam

Md. Fakrul Islam Vs the State of Assam

Md. Mokbul Hussain Vs the State of Assam

Biswanath Das and 3 Ors. Vs the State of Assam