Dismissed

Amad Uddin Tapadar v. the State of Assam

Gauhati HC14 Jun 2023Bail Appln./1901/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court rejected the bail application of Amad Uddin Tapadar, an accused in a trafficking case involving 9.477 kg of heroin. Relying on Section 37 of the NDPS Act and judicial precedents, the Court held that reasonable grounds to believe the petitioner is not guilty were absent due to commercial quantity seizure and his contact with the driver. The application under Section 436A Cr.P

What did the court decide?

The application for regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is rejected.

Amad Uddin Tapadar Vs the State of Assam — Narcotics (NDPS) | Gauhati HC (2023)

¶1

Page No.# 1/8

¶2

GAHC010116902023

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : Bail Appln./1901/2023

¶5

AMAD UDDIN TAPADAR S/O ABDUL MALIK TAPADAR

¶6

R/O VILL- JATKAPON, P.O. LALARCHAK, P.S. KARIMGANJ, DIST. KARIMGANJ, ASSAM

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM

¶9

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR H R A CHOUDHURY

¶10

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM

¶11

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA

¶12

ORDER

¶13

Date : 14-06-2023

¶14

Heard Mr. H.R.A. Choudhury, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. A. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M.P. Goswami, learned Addl. P.P. for the State.

¶15

Page No.# 2/8

¶16

The petitioner, Amad Uddin Tapadar, who was arrested on 12.10.2022, in connection with Karimganj PS Case No. 588/2022 and tried as Special (NDPS) Case No. 155/2022 under Sections 21(c), 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985 in the Court of learned Special Judge, Karimganj, and has spent 245 days as on today, has prayed for regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

¶17

The learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in respect of the petitioner, although charge-sheet no. 130 dated 06.04.2023 is shown to have been filed, but the charge-sheet filed against the petitioner can only be considered as a part charge-sheet. In the said context, it has been submitted that the FSL report regarding the call detail record of the mobile phone of the petitioner and voice sample of the petitioner, which was collected by the prosecution was not received on the date when charge-sheet was filed. Hence, it was submitted that by filing a part-charge sheet, the prosecution has made an attempt to deny bail to the petitioner.

¶18

It was submitted that till date, the trial has not begun as some co-accused has not been apprehended till date and as such, it was submitted that there is no likelihood of early trial. It was also submitted that the petitioner cannot be kept in continued custody for indefinite time till the conclusion of trial as conclusion of trial would still take a couple of months. It was also submitted that if in trial, the petitioner is not found guilty, he would have undergone long custody despite not committing any offence. It has been also submitted that the petitioner has movable and immovable property and therefore, there is no chance of absconding and that the petitioner is ready and willing to abide by any condition that may be imposed on grant of bail. It is also submitted that by the statement of the co-accused, the prosecution is attempting to convict the

¶19

Page No.# 3/8

¶20

petitioner, which is not sustainable.

¶21

The learned Addl. PP has perused the scanned copy of the case record and has opposed the prayer for bail. It was submitted that the previous application made by the petitioner for grant of bail was rejected by this Court by order dated 10.02.2023, passed in BA 302/2023 and it was submitted that no new case has been made out by the petitioner for grant of bail.

¶22

The case record reveals that on 11.10.2022, information was received from reliable source that huge quantity of narcotic drugs was being transported from Choggulla side towards Tripura and accordingly, FIR was lodged and on endorsement made by the Officer-in-Charge of Karimganj P.S., a truck bearing registration no. AS-11-BC-7975 was intercepted and when the driver was asked, he led to recovery of suspected heroin in 764 soap boxes, weighing 9.477 kg., and accordingly, the truck along with contraband narcotic and other things, mentioned in the FIR were seized. The investigation also reveals that the I.O. has collected sufficient materials to suggest that the petitioner was in contact with the arrested persons and that there are strong reasons for the I.0. to suspect that the petitioner was the contraband supplier. It would not be appropriate to disclose the materials available in the case diary against the petitioner because of the fact that huge quantity of heroin weighing 9.477 kg. was seized and moreover, it appears from the case diary that the I.O. is trying to unearth the international drug smuggling racket. As per the learned Addl. P.P., the street price of the said heroin would be between Rs.60.00 to Rs.65.00 Crore. Case diary also reveals that during search conducted in the house of the petitioner, cash amount of Rs.20.00 lakh was recovered. It appears that there are reasons for the I.0. to strongly suspect

¶23

Page No.# 4/8

¶24

that the petitioner is the owner of the seized contraband heroin.

¶25

It is not in dispute that no contraband was seized from the petitioner. However, as per the investigation carried out so far, the petitioner was in constant touch with the driver of the vehicle carrying contraband weighing 9.477 kg. heroin, which had an estimated market value of Rs.60.00 to Rs.65.00 crore. According to the FSL report, the said contraband was tested positive for heroin. Moreover, cash amount of Rs.20.00 lakh was seized from the house of the petitioner, which was beyond his source of income. As per the charge-sheet, the petitioner was in contact with the driver of the vehicle carrying contraband through a fake sim card, which was used as his own mobile number. As per the charge-sheet, the petitioner is involved in trafficking narcotics illegally into the State through suppliers in the State of Mizoram and Tripura.

¶26

As per order dated 16.05.2023, passed by the learned Special Judge, Karimganj in Special (NDPS) Case No. 155/2022, the learned Special Judge has held that charge-sheet is complete in all particulars except arrest of the absconding co-accused, and further investigation and collection of FSL expert opinion.

¶27

Although a lot of stress was given by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner to the effect that the chance of conviction is bleak. In the said regard, the Court is of the considered opinion that such an examination cannot be done at the stage of consideration of prayer for bail.

¶28

In the present case, the trial is yet to be concluded. Nonetheless, the prosecution has been able to prima facie satisfy the Court that there are

¶29

Page No.# 5/8

¶30

materials in the final complaint to suggest that the petitioner was involved in transportation of commercial quantity of contraband i.e. heroin into the State.

¶31

In the case of Narcotics Control Bureau Vs. Mohit Aggarwal, AIR 2022 SC 3444, the case was lodged under section 8/22/29 of the NDPS Act, 1985. In the said case, a 3 Judge Bench of the Supreme Court of India had observed and held as follows:-

¶32

11 . It is evident from a plain reading of the non-obstante clause inserted in sub-section (1) and the conditions imposed in sub-section (2) of Section 37 that there are certain restrictions placed on the power of the Court when granting bail to a person accused of having committed an offence under the NDPS Act. Not only are the limitations imposed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to be kept in mind, the restrictions placed under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 37 are also to be factored in. The conditions imposed in sub- section (1) of Section 37 is that (i) the Public Prosecutor ought to be given an opportunity to oppose the application moved by an accused person for release and (ii) if such an application is opposed, then the Court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the person accused is not guilty of such an offence. Additionally, the Court must be satisfied that the accused person is unlikely to commit any offence while on bail.

¶33

12 . The expression “reasonable grounds” has come up for discussion in several rulings of this Court. In Collector of Customs, New Delhi v. Ahmadalieva Nodira, (2004) 3 SCC 549 a decision rendered by a Three Judges Bench of this Court, it has been held thus:-

¶34

'7. The limitations on granting of bail come in only when the question of granting bail arises on merits. Apart from the grant of opportunity to the Public Prosecutor, the other twin conditions which really have relevance so far as the present accused-respondent is concerned, are: the satisfaction of the court that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. The conditions are cumulative and not alternative. The satisfaction contemplated regarding the accused being not guilty has to be based on reasonable grounds. The expression “reasonable grounds” means something more than prima facie grounds. It contemplates substantial probable causes for believing that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence. The reasonable belief contemplated in the provision requires existence of such facts and circumstances as are sufficient in themselves to

¶35

Page No.# 6/8

¶36

justify satisfaction that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence.' [emphasis added]

¶37

13 . The expression 'reasonable ground' came up for discussion in ' State of Kerala and others Vs. Rajesh and others', (2020) 12 SCC 122 and this Court has observed as below:

¶38

”20. The expression “reasonable grounds” means something more than prima facie grounds. It contemplates substantial probable causes for believing that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence. The reasonable belief contemplated in the provision requires existence of such facts and circumstances as are sufficient in themselves to justify satisfaction that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence. In the case on hand, the High Court seems to have completely overlooked the underlying object of Section 37 that in addition to the limitations provided under the CrPC, or any other law for the time being in force, regulating the grant of bail, its liberal approach in the matter of bail under the NDPS Act is indeed uncalled for.” [emphasis added]

¶39

14 . To sum up, the expression “reasonable grounds” used in clause (b) of SubSection (1) of Section 37 would mean credible, plausible and grounds for the Court to believe that the accused person is not guilty of the alleged offence. For arriving at any such conclusion, such facts and circumstances must exist in a case that can persuade the Court to believe that the accused person would not have committed such an offence. Dove-tailed with the aforesaid satisfaction is an additional consideration that the accused person is unlikely to commit any offence while on bail.

¶40

15 . We may clarify that at the stage of examining an application for bail in the context of the Section 37 of the Act, the Court is not required to record a finding that the accused person is not guilty. The Court is also not expected to weigh the evidence for arriving at a finding as to whether the accused has committed an offence under the NDPS Act or not. The entire exercise that the Court is expected to undertake at this stage is for the limited purpose of releasing him on bail. Thus, the focus is on the availability of reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offences that he has been charged with and he is unlikely to commit an offence under the Act while on bail.

¶41

¶42

17 . Even dehors the confessional statement of the respondent and the other co-accused recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, which were subsequently retracted by them, the other circumstantial evidence brought on record by the appellant-NCB ought to have dissuaded the High Court from exercising its discretion in favour of the respondent and concluding that there were reasonable grounds to justify that he was not guilty of such an offence under the NDPS Act.

¶43

Page No.# 7/8

¶44

We are not persuaded by the submission made by learned counsel for the respondent and the observation made in the impugned order that since nothing was found from the possession of the respondent, he is not guilty of the offence for which he has been charged. Such an assumption would be premature at this stage.”

¶45

As commercial quantity of contraband has been seized from the possession of the vehicle’s driver, and that the petitioner was in close contact with the said driver, the Court is unable to arrive at a prima facie conclusion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.

¶46

It would also be relevant to quote the provision of Section 436A Cr.P.C., which is as follows:-

¶47

“436A. Maximum period for which an under trial prisoner can be detained .- Where a person has, during the period of investigation, inquiry or trial under this Code of an offence under any law (not being an offence for which the punishment of death has been specified as one of the punishments under that law) undergone detention for a period extending up to one-half of the maximum period of imprisonment specified for that offence under that law, he shall be released by the Court on his personal bond with or without sureties:

¶48

Provided that the Court may, after hearing the Public Prosecutor and for reasons to be recorded by it in writing, order the continued detention of such person for a period longer than one-half of the said period or release him on bail instead of the personal bond with or without sureties:

¶49

Provided further that no such person shall in any case be detained during the period of investigation, inquiry or trial for more than the maximum period of imprisonment provided for the said offence under that law.

¶50

Explanation.—In computing the period of detention under this section for granting bail, the period of detention passed due to delay in proceeding caused by the accused shall be excluded.”

¶51

It would also be appropriate to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court of India in the case of Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, AIR 2022 SC 3386, wherein it is provided that “Where the

¶52

Page No.# 8/8

¶53

undertrial accused is charged with an offence(s) under the Act punishable with minimum imprisonment of ten years and a minimum fine of Rupees one lakh, such an undertrial shall be released on bail if he has been in jail for not less than five years provided he furnishes bail in the sum of Rupees one lakh with two sureties for like amount.”

¶54

In the present case, the petitioner is charged of committing offence punishable under sections 21(c) of the NDPS Act. Under the said provision, the punishment prescribed is not less than 10 years but which may extend to 20 years and shall also be liable to fine which shall not be less than Rs.1.00 lakh but which may extend to Rs.2.00 lakh. Therefore, following the ratio laid down in the case of Satender Kumar Antil (supra), as well as the provision of Section 436A Cr.P.C., the petitioner having been incarcerated for a period of 245 days, has not become entitled to be released on bail.

¶55

Thus, this application for bail is rejected.

¶56

Nothing contained in this order shall prejudice either side during trial.

¶57

JUDGE

¶58

Comparing Assistant

Amad Uddin Tapadar v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amad Uddin Tapadar 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

Dakshin Baguribari Samabay Samity Ltd. and 4 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Nizam Khan Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Dilip Kumar Sharmah Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

S R Engineering Construction Vs the Commander Works Engineer

Dalimi Hansepi Vs Gyanendra Dev Tripathi and Anr.

Kaushlya Das Vs Gyanendra Dev Tripathi, I.A.S. and Anr.