Applicant sought anticipatory bail in an NDPS case after 1728.23 kg of suspected ganja was seized from his registered vehicle. The lease agreement to another person was unregistered. The court held he failed to satisfy Section 37 NDPS Act and dismissed the pre-arrest bail application.
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.# 1/3
GAHC010043202024
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : AB/541/2024
SULTAN UDDIN
S/O- INTAJ ALI, VILL- SARASPUR AMTALA, P.S. KADAMTALA, DISTNORTH TRIPURA, TRIPURA
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE P.P., ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR F A LASKAR
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM
BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER
08.05.2024
Heard Mr. F.A. Laskar, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. B.B. Gogoi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent.
2. Apprehending arrest in connection with the Kalain P.S. Case No. 499/2023 , under Section 20(c) of the NDPS Act, this application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is preferred by applicant namely, Sultan Uddin for grant of pre-arrest bail.
Page No.# 2/3
3. It is to be noted here that the said case has been registered on the basis of one F.I.R., lodged by S.I. (P) Pranjal Lakra, on 05.10.2023. The essence of allegation made in the FIR is that on 05.10.2023, at about 2:15 am, acting on a tip off the informant along with this staff, have intercepted one vehicle, bearing registration No. TR-01-AR-1815, which was coming towards Meghalaya and after checking the vehicle they have recovered 1728.23 kgs of suspected Ganja and seized the same in presence of witnesses.
4. Mr. Laskar, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is the registered owner of the aforesaid vehicle and he purchased the same from TATA Finance Limited on hire purchase and he had paid the EMI. Mr. Laskar further submits that vide agreement dated 03.06.2023, the present applicant had leased the vehicle to one Nilu Sharma on the condition that he will pay the EMI @ Rs.99,180/- to the finance company. Mr. Laskar also submits that the applicant is innocent and no way involved with the offence alleged in the FIR and that he is ready to cooperate with the investigating agency and therefore, it is contended to allow the petition.
5. On the other hand, by producing the case diary before the court and by referring to the materials collected so far in the same, Mr. Gogoi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the applicant is the registered owner of the vehicle, from where the contraband substances were recovered and as per his own document, Annexure – 4 of the petition, he had paid EMI till 31.09.2023. Mr. Gogoi further submits that the I.O. has collected sufficient incriminating materials against the applicant and therefore, it is contended to dismiss the petition.
6. Having heard the submission of learned Advocates of both sides, I have carefully gone through the petition as well as the documents placed on
Page No.# 3/3
record and also perused the Case Diary produced before this Court with the assistance of learned Additional Public Prosecutor.
7. It appears from the case diary that the informant and his staff have seized 1728.23 Kgs of suspected Ganja from the vehicle, bearing registration No. TR-01-AR-1815, which was coming towards Meghalaya and admittedly the present applicant is the registered owner of the same. Though Mr. Laskar, learned counsel for the applicant submits that pursuant to an agreement 03.06.2023, Annexure – 3, the present applicant had given the vehicle to one Nilu Sharma on the condition that he will pay the EMI @ Rs. 99,180/- to the finance company, yet, the same is neither a registered agreement nor a sale deed, so as to place implicit reliance up on the same. Further, it also appears from the case diary that the present applicant is still the registered owner of the aforesaid vehicle and the said vehicle was blacklisted by the DTO of North Tripura, for transportation of illegal substances.
8. Indisputably, also the quantity of contraband substances recovered reasonable from the vehicle is of commercial quantity and the applicant has failed satisfy the requirement of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, that there is no ground for believing that he is not guilty of the offence alleged in the FIR and that he will not commit any offence while on bail.
9. Under the aforementioned facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view that this is not a fit case where the privilege of pre-arrest bail can be extended to the applicant and therefore, the same is dismissed.
10. The case diary be returned.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
1 issue framed by the court
Whether pre-arrest bail under Section 438 CrPC can be granted to the registered owner of a vehicle from which commercial quantity ganja was recovered, given Section 37 NDPS Act conditions.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Sultan Uddin
The State of Assam to be represented by the P.P., Assam
Robin Phukan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
