Dismissed

Ch. Lunkholal Mate v. the State of Assam

Gauhati HC7 Feb 2023Bail Appln./110/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court refused bail to a petitioner accused of trafficking narcotic drugs under the NDPS Act, 1985. Relying on Supreme Court precedent, the court held that the petitioner was involved in conspiracy dealing with commercial quantities and was a repeat offender, failing to satisfy the mandatory presumption of guilt under Section 37(b)(ii).

What did the court decide?

Prayer for regular bail in connection with Special NDPS Case No. 44/2021 was refused.

Ch. Lunkholal Mate Vs the State of Assam — Narcotics (NDPS) | Gauhati HC (2023)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010003872023

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : Bail Appln./110/2023

¶5

CH. LUNKHOLAL MATE S/O CH. THATKHOJANG MATE VILL- TENGNOUPAL, P.S. TENGNOUPAL DIST. TENGNOUPAL, STATE- MANIPUR

¶6

VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM

¶7

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B CHETRI

¶8

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM

¶9

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA

¶10

ORDER

¶11

Date : 07.02.2023

¶12

Heard Mr. B. Chetri, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. S.H. Bora, the learned Addl. P.P. for the State.

¶13

The petitioner, namely, Ch. Lunkholal Mate, who was shown

¶14

Page No.# 2/3

¶15

arrested on 05.07.2022 in connection with Palashbari P.S. Case No. 379/2021 under sections 21(c)/22(c)/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, is seeking regular bail under section 439 IPC.

¶16

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is in custody for last 582 days, having been shown arrest on 05.07.2021. It is also submitted that the charge-sheet does not disclose any material against the petitioner because two other co-accused were arrested redhanded on a scooty while transporting the contraband and no contraband was seized from the possession of the petitioner. It is, thus, submitted that the petitioner has been implicated on the basis of surmises and conjectures alone. Moreover, it has been submitted that till date, only one prosecution witness has been examined and therefore, there is no sign of an early trial.

¶17

In the aforesaid case, the I.O. has submitted charge-sheet No. 256/2021 dated 31.08.2021 against the petitioner before the learned Court of Special Judge, Kamrup, Amingaon, implicating the petitioner of offence. Accordingly, the scanned copy of the case diary was called for from the said learned Court. The learned Addl. P.P. has perused the same and has opposed the prayer for bail as there are sufficient materials against him in the case diary.

¶18

The case diary reveals that the petitioner is the main supplier of contraband narcotic drugs, which were being transported by the two other coaccused. The two other lady co-accused were stopped at a barrier put up on a public road at 6.30 am, and although they tried to escape, they were caught and on interrogation, they took the police party to their rented house from where the police had seized 96,350 methamphetamine (ya-ba) tablets weighing 10.274 kg as well as Rs.3,70,000/- in cash. The investigation carried out so far

¶19

Page No.# 3/3

¶20

suggests that the petitioner is the supplier of the said narcotic drugs.

¶21

Under the said circumstances, as the Court finds the petitioner to be involved in the conspiracy of dealing with commercial quantity of contraband narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, which is detrimental for the well-being of the society, specially the youths of the State, the Court is unable to record its satisfaction that the petitioner is not guilty of such offence, as per the mandate of Section 37(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act, 1985, moreso, because of the fact that the petitioner is also stated to be involved in another NDPS Case, being Palashbari P.S. Case No. 461/2021 under sections 21(b)/29 of the NDPS Act, 1985, which makes the petitioner a suspect in repetitive offence of dealing with contraband narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. In this regard, we may place reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court of India in the case of Narcotic Control Bureau v. Mohit Aggarwal, AIR 2022 SC 3444.

¶22

Accordingly, the prayer of the petitioner, Ch. Lunkholal Mate for bail in connection with Special NDPS Case No. 44/2021, arising out of Palashbari P.S. Case No. 379/2021 under sections 21(c)/22(c)/29 of the NDPS Act, 1985 is refused at this stage despite the fact that till date only one prosecution witness has been examined.

¶23

8. This application is disposed of.

¶24

Registry shall not issue copy (certified/un-certified) of any part of the scanned case diary.

¶25

JUDGE

¶26

Comparing Assistant

Ch. Lunkholal Mate v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ch. Lunkholal Mate 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

Tanmoy Das @ Raj Vs the State of Assam

Rajib Pegu Vs the State of Assam

Ismail Hussain Vs the State of Assam

Samad Khan Vs the State of Assam

MD Abdul Kalam Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Abu Bakkar Siddique Vs the State of Assam