Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010156082025 2025:GAU-AS:12936 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2447/2025 AMRENDRA KUMAR SINGH SON OF LATE SUKHPAL SINGH R/O VILL- CHAUDHIPUR, P.O. NAUDAD, P.S. JAGDISHPUR, DIST. AMETHI, UTTAR PRADESH. VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SC, NCB. Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B KONWAR, Advocate for the Respondent : SC, NCB, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER 16.09.2025 1. Heard Mr. Shivam Sharma, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. M. Deka, the learned counsel for the NCB. 2. This application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Amrendra Kumar Singh, who is detained behind the Page No.# 2/5 bars since 05.09.2021 (for more than 04 years) in connection with NDPS Case No. 47/2022, corresponding to NCB Crime No. 24/2021 under Section 8(c) read with Sections 21(c)/29 of the NDPS Act, 1985. 3. The gist of accusation against the present petitioner is that he was found in possession of 40102 bottles of codeine-based cough syrup with brand name “Eskuf”, while he was driving the vehicle (Truck bearing Registration No. UP32KN6464). 4. The learned counsel of the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is seeking bail in this case on 2(two) counts, namely, first of all on the ground of prolonged incarceration and secondly, that his fundamental rights guaranteed to him under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India has been violated in this case inasmuch as in the notice furnished to him under Section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, no grounds of arrest were mentioned therein neither any basic facts which necessitated his arrest have been stated therein. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the petitioner has been languishing behind the bars for more than 4(four)years and till date, only 3(three) out of 8(eight) listed prosecution witnesses have been examined and at this phase, the trial is unlikely to culminate soon. 6. He submits that the prolonged incarceration of the petitioner violates the Fundamental Rights guaranteed to him under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and in such a circumstance, his Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India overrides the embargo of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985. 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the NCB has submitted that there are sufficient materials on record against the present petitioner regarding his complicity in the offence alleged in the charge sheet. Page No.# 3/5 8. She also submits that as the quantity of contraband seized in this case is of commercial quantity. Hence, the embargo of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985 would be applicable to this case. She also submits that though notice under Section 50 and 50 A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 do not specifically mentions the ground of arrest. However, the grounds of arrest were stated in the arrest memo prepared at the time of his arrest. A copy of which has also been furnished to the petitioner and therefore, there is no violation of constitutional mandate under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. 9. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides. There is no dispute at bar regarding the fact that the petitioner has been languishing behind the bars for last more than 4(four) years. 10. The Supreme Court of India in “Mohd Muslim @ Hussain Vs. State” (NCT of Delhi)” reported in “2023 SCC Online SC 352” has observed that “Grant of bail on ground of undue delay in trial, cannot be said to be fettered by section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985”. 11. Similarly, the Apex Court of India has also observed in “Rabi Prakash Vs. The State of Odisha” reported in “2023 SCC Online SC 1109” wherein, it observed that “prolonged incarceration, generally militates against the most precious Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and in such a situation, the conditional liberty must override the statutory embargo created under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act, 1985.” 12. It is also pertinent to mention herein that the Supreme Court of India had granted bail to the accused facing charges for possession of commercial quantity of contraband only on the ground of prolonged incarceration in “Shariful Islam @ Sarif Vs. State of West Bengal” (order dated 04.08.2022 in “SLP Criminal No. 4173/2022), wherein the accused was Page No.# 4/5 detained behind the bars for one year and six months. 31. In “Nitesh Adhikari Vs. State of West Bengal” (Order dated 01.08.2022 in “SLP Criminal No. 5769/2022)”, the Apex Court granted bail to the accused facing accusation under Section 21(c) of the NDPS Act, 1985 on the ground of incarceration of one year seven months. 13. In the instant case, the petitioner has been languishing behind the bars for more than 4(four) years and, therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the incarceration undergone by the petitioner is long enough to consider the same as an infringement of guaranteed to him under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and under such circumstances, the Fundamental Rights of the petitioner would override the embargo of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985 and on that ground itself, he is entitled to get bail in this case. 14. As the petitioner is found entitled to get bail on the ground of prolonged incarceration, this Court does not intend to discuss the ground agitated by the petitioner seeking bail, i.e. violation of his Fundamental Rights Article 21(1) of the Constitution of India. 15. In view of the above, the above-named petitioner is allowed to be released on bail on furnishing a bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with 2(two) sureties of like amount, subject to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 5, Kamrup(M) with following conditions:- i. That the petitioner shall cooperate in the trial of NDPS Case No. 47/2022 corresponding to NCB Crime No. 24/2021 under Section 8(c) read with Sections 21(c)/29 of the NDPS Act, 1985. ii. That the petitioner shall appear before the Trial Court as and when so required by the Trial Court; Page No.# 5/5 iii. That the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person who may be acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade such person from disclosing such facts before the Trial Court in the trial pending against the present petitioner; iv. That the petitioner shall provide his contact details including photocopies of his Aadhaar Card or Driving License or PAN card, mobile number, and other contact details before the Trial Court; v. That the petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without prior permission of the Trial Court and when such leave is granted by the Trial Court, the petitioner shall submit his leave address and contact details during such leave before the Trial Court; and vi. That the petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail. 16. With the above observation, this bail application is accordingly, disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant