Tamijur Rahman and Anr. Vs the State of Assam

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010011662025

¶3

2025:GAU-AS:7514

¶4

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

¶5

Case No. : Bail Appln./171/2025

¶6

TAMIJUR RAHMAN AND ANR S/O ABDUL RAHMAN @ MD. NINGTHEM, R/O VILL- PAOBITEK, MAYAI, P.S. WANGOI DIST. IMPHAL (WEST)MANIPUR. 2: MD. ABDUL ROHIM @ ABDUL RAHIM S/O ABDUL HEI @ HAI VILL- LILONG MAKHA LEIKAI P.S. LILONG DIST. THOUBAL MANIPUR

¶7

VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM

¶8

Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. S KAUR, N NEOG,L BANIK

¶9

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,

¶10

BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND

¶11

ORDER

¶12

Date : 09-06-2025

¶13

Heard learned counsel Ms. N. Neog for the petitioners No. 1. Md. Tamijur Rahman and 2. Md. Abdul Rohim @ Abdul Rahim, who have filed this

¶14

Page No.# 2/4

¶15

application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with prayer for bail as the petitioners are behind bars since 17.11.2023 in connection with NDPS Case No. 166/2024, pending in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 5, Kamrup (M), Guwahati, arising out of STF Police Station Case No. 18/2023 under Section 21(c)/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

¶16

Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. P. Borthakur for the respondent State.

¶17

It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the petitioners are behind bars since 17.11.2023. Ten witnesses are enlisted in the charge sheet as cited witnesses but not a single witness has been examined so far. 14 (Fourteen) dates have been fixed for evidence but not a single witness has been examined. This case has been procrastinated by the prosecution as well as by the State.

¶18

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has raised serious objection against the bail petition stating that the petitioner is not entitled to bail as the rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act acts as an embargo. The petitioners were apprehended while transporting 1 kg 63 grams of Heroin. The offence is of heinous in nature and the length of detention is not a ground to grant bail. It is further submitted that the petitioners are not local residents and there is every possibility that the petitioners will flee from justice.

¶19

The petitioners have relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ankur Chaudhary Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh wherein vide order dated 28.05.2024, in connection with Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 4648/2024 it

¶20

Page No.# 3/4

¶21

has been observed that :

¶22

“ Now, on examination the panch witnesses have not supported the case of prosecution. On facts, we are not inclined to consider the Investigation Officer as a panch witness. It is to observe that failure to conclude the trial within a reasonable time resulting in prolonged incarceration militates against the precious fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and as such, conditional liberty overriding the statutory embargo created under Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act may, in such circumstances, be considered.”

¶23

Reverting back to this case, it is held that the petitioners have been behind bars since 17.11.2023. It is true that the petitioners are booked under a heinous offence but their right to personal liberty has been curtailed as the State as well as the Trial Court has not examined a single witness. Culmination of trial appears to be remote. It appears that bail may be granted to the petitioners.

¶24

In the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ankur Chaudhary’s case, this petition is allowed.

¶25

The petitioners are enlarged on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac) each with two local sureties of like amount, one being Government surety, to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court under the conditions that :-

¶26

(i) the petitioners shall not jump the bail,

¶27

(ii) the petitioners shall cooperate with the trial and the petitioners shall

¶28

Page No.# 4/4

¶29

refrain from such activities with which they are alleged.

¶30