Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010109842025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/556/2025 PAOKHANLAL MANLUN SON OF ZILTONG MANLUN RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SONJANG SAGOLMANG KANGPOKPI MANIPUR VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP ASSAM ------------ Advocate for : SABRISH AHMED Advocate for : PP ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA ORDER 10.09.2025 (M. Zothankhuma, J) Heard Mr. S. Ahmed, learned counsel for the applicant/appellant and Ms. S.H. Bora, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for the State. Page No.# 2/3 This application under Section 430 BNSS is for suspension of sentence passed upon the applicant pursuant to the judgment dated 25.03.2025 and sentence order dated 29.03.2025, by which the applicant was convicted under Section 21(c) NDPS Act, 1985 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 12 (twelve) years, with a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-, in default of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 (six) months. The prosecution case is that Heroin weighing approximately 565.28 grams had been recovered from the vehicle driven by the applicant, where no one else was the occupant of the vehicle except the applicant. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the persons who had entered the vehicle at the time of search for contraband, were not searched by the police, to ascertain that they did not carry any seized contraband into the vehicle. He also submits that even though there were more than 20 people near the place of seizure, the independent witnesses were not called by the police. He further submits that the seizure witnesses were not from the locality in which the seizure was made. He also submits that the VDP Secretary, who was also present at the place of seizure should have been made a seizure witness, but the said VDP Secretary was not made a seizure witness. He also submits that as the applicant has been behind bars for 2 years 5 month, the applicant should be granted bail, by suspending the sentence imposed upon him. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand submits that the evidence of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 goes to show that the seized contraband had been recovered from the secret cavity in the vehicle driven by the applicant, who was the lone occupant of the said vehicle. During the time of seizure, a number of people were present and there is nothing to show that there was any wrong doing at the time of seizure and arrest of the applicant. Page No.# 3/3 On considering the evidence of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 and the fact that the applicant was the lone occupant of the vehicle wherein the seized contraband had been recovered, we are not inclined to allow the present application at this stage. The application is accordingly rejected. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant