Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010093992025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1415/2025 UMAKANTA KALITA @ UMA KT KALITA ALIAS MAINA KALITA SON OF SABHAI KALITA @ SAVAI KALITA, R/O VILL-MAKRACHUK,P.S. DHAKUAKHANA DIST. LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P BORDOLOI, MS M NIROLA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MALASRI NANDI ORDER 21.05.2025 Heard Mr. P. Bordoloi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 2. By filing this third bail application under Section 483 BNSS, 2023 the petitioner, namely, Umakanta Kalita @ Uma Kt. Kalita @ Maina Kalita, has sought for bail in connection with Special (NDPS) Case No. 28/2023 u/s 20(c)/29 of NDPS Act, pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Page No.# 2/4 Judge (FTC), Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur. 3. The factual matrix of the case is that on the day of the incident, during naka checking, the police personnel apprehended one Nikul Doley and 2.700 gm suspected ganjga was recovered from him. It also appears that the said Nikul Doley implicated the present petitioner. The case of the petitioner is that when an anti drug drive was carried out in the area of the petitioner’s house, some unknown persons had thrown the alleged suspected ganja near the house of the petitioner which was recovered from his house weighing about 22 kg. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that this is the third bail application filed by the petitioner seeking bail. Earlier bail applications were rejected by this Court on 15.11.2023 in BA 3866/2023 and on 29.05.2024 in BA No. 498/2024. Learned counsel has further submitted that Section 50 Cr. P. C.(S 47 BNSS) notice was not issued to the petitioner at the time of his arrest and the arrest memo is also not available in the record. Hence, non furnishing of Section 50 Cr.P.C. notice or arrest memo without grounds of arrest led to violation of fundamental rights of the petitioner as guaranteed under Article 21/22 of the Constitution of India. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the following Bail application. (1) BA 153/2025 (Mojir Uddin vs State of Assam). 5. It is also submitted that the accused/petitioner has been languishing in judicial custody for last 1 year 9 months since his arrest on 11.08.2023. It is further submitted that the co-accused has already been enlarged on bail by this Court. Accordingly, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail. 6. Per contra, Mr. D. P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has Page No.# 3/4 submitted that the contraband was recovered from the house of the petitioner as such the earlier bail applications were rejected by this Court on merit. The subsequent bail application cannot be considered on prolonged incarceration. Accordingly, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has prayed for dismissal of this bail application. 7. I have considered the submission of the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the trial court record which reveals that the petitioner was shown as absconder in the charge-sheet. Subsequently, he had surrendered before the trial court on 11.08.2023 and had been taken into custody. As the accused petitioner was not available during investigation, he was not arrested as such question of issuing Section 50 Cr.P.C. notice or arrest memo does not arise. Under such backdrop, the petitioner cannot be released on bail on the grounds of non furnishing of grounds of arrest in Section 50 Cr.P.C. notice or arrest memo. The cited case laws rendered in BA 153/2025 is not applicable in the instant case. 8. It is well settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of decisions that subsequent bail application is maintainable only when there is change of circumstance in favour of the accused. Reference in this context can be made to a decision in State of T.N. vs. S.A. Raja reported in (2005) 8 SCC 380. Here in this case, admittedly, and except the length of detention, no change of circumstances has taken place in favour of the accused. 9. In the case of NCB vs. Mohit Agarwal, reported in [2022] 0 Supreme (SC) 619, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the length of period of his custody or the fact that the charge sheet has been filed and the trial has commenced, are by themselves not consideration that can be treated as persuasive ground for granting relief to the accused under section 37 of the NDPS Act. 10. That being so, the length of detention, to the considered opinion of this Page No.# 4/4 court, can neither be a change of circumstance in favour of the accused nor be it a ground of releasing the accused on bail. 11. Indisputably, the quantity of contraband substance recovered from the possession/house of the accused/petitioner are of commercial quantity and as such, the embargo under Section 37 of the NDPS Act will definitely come into play here in this case. Moreover, from the materials placed on record as well as from the submission of the learned counsel for the accused/ petitioner, this Court is unable to derive its satisfaction that the accused/petitioner is not guilty of the offence and that he will not commit similar offence while on bail. 12. Situated thus, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. 13. Hence, the prayer for bail stands rejected. 14. Accordingly, bail application is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant