Page No.# 1/8 GAHC010165992025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2528/2025 RAMESH G S/O GANESAN R/O 1/3015, THANTHAI PERIYAR STREET, NAGATHAMMAN NAGAR, NALLUR, REDHILLS, DIST. TIRUVALLUR, TAMIL NADU- 600052, PH. NO. 9678424277. VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE STANDING COUNSEL, NCB Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B D KONWAR SR. ADV., MS M ZOMUANPUII,MR H AGARWAL,MR J SINGH Advocate for the Respondent : SC, NCB, Page No.# 2/8 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 28.08.2025 1. Heard Mr. B. D. Konwar, the learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. H. Agarwal, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M. Deka, the learned standing counsel for the NCB. 2. This application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Ramesh G, who is detained behind the bars since 14.03.2022 (for more than 3 years 5 months) in connection with NDPS Case No. 131/2021 under Sections 22(c)/29 of NDPS Act, 1985 pending in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Kamrup(M). 3. The gist of accusation in this case is that on 06.03.2021 at about 1800 Hrs., an information was received through reliable sources regarding transportation of 10 kg of methamphetamine in a black colour Ford car bearing Registration No. MN-05-A-7260. On the basis of said information, a team of NCB officials was constituted and a naka checking was arranged near Nazirakhat Toll Plaza, Lomati Gaon, Kamrup(M). During naka checking, one Ford Fusion car bearing registration No. MN-05-A-7260 was intercepted and two persons, namely, Krishna Mahapatra Mali and Muhammad Safiqur Rahman were apprehended. During search operation, 10.276 kg of methamphetamine (in crystal form) was recovered. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the in the final complaint filed by the NCB in the aforesaid case, eight numbers accused persons were shown therein. Page No.# 3/8 5. He submits that except the present petitioner one co-accused Mr. Ganesh G, all other co-accused person have been granted bail in this case. 6. He further submits that nothing was found from conscious possession of the present petitioner and he has been implicated in this case on the basis of statement of the co accused. 7. He also submits that though the petitioner has been languishing behind the bars for more than three years five months, however, till date out of fifteen listed prosecution witnesses in the Final complaint only two have been examined. 8. He further submits that at this stage there is unlikelihood of the early culmination of the trial and, therefore, he is entitled to get bail on the ground of prolong incarceration. 9. As due to such long incarceration his fundamental right guaranteed to him under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is violated. 10. On the other hand, Mr. M. Deka, the learned standing counsel for the NCB has opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner on the ground that the quantity of contraband seized in this case is of commercial quantity and, therefore, the embargo of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985 is applicable to this case. 11. The learned standing counsel for the NCB also submits that the petitioner was the intended receiver of the seized contraband and he came to Guwahati only for the purpose of receiving the seized contraband. 12. She also submits that there are sufficient materials on record against the present petitioner regarding his complicity in the offence alleged in this case. 13. She has also submitted that the petitioner is also involved in another Page No.# 4/8 case of similar nature and therefore, she opposes the grant of bail to the present petitioner. 14. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and have gone through the scanned copies of records of NDPS Case No. 131/2021 which was called for in connection with this case. 15. In the case of “Hussainara Khatoon Vs. Home Secy., State of Bihar, reported in “(1980) 1 SCC 115”, the Apex Court has observed that the procedure prescribed by law for depriving a person of his personal liberty cannot be regarded as reasonable, fair or just unless that procedure ensures a speedy trial for determination of guilt of such person. No procedure which does not ensure a reasonably quick trial can be regarded as reasonable, fair or just and it would fall foul of Article 21 of the Constitution of India 16. The Hon’ble 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 the ground of undue delay in trial cannot be said to be fettered by Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985”. 17. The Hon'ble Apex Court in “Rabi Prakash Vs. State of Orissa” reported in “2023 SCC Online SC 1109”, wherein it has been observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court that “The prolonged incarceration, generally militates against the most precious fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and in such a situation, the conditional liberty must override the statutory embargo created under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act.” 18. This Court is of the considered opinion that for whatsoever reasons, if inordinate delay has been caused and if it is not due to any fault of the petitioner, then to keep him under incarceration for a long period on one hand, and to continue to cause delay in culmination of the trial on the other hand Page No.# 5/8 would certainly be infringing his fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and under such circumstances, the petitioner would be entitled to get bail. 19. In this regard the observations made by the Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. CBI & Anr. reported in (2022) 10 SCC 51 are relevant, same is quoted here in below: “49. Sub-section (1) mandates courts to continue the proceedings on a day-to-day basis till the completion of the evidence. Therefore, once a trial starts, it should reach the logical end. Various directions have been issued by this Court not to give unnecessary adjournments resulting in the witnesses being won over. However, the noncompliance of Section 309 continues with gay abandon. Perhaps courts alone cannot be faulted as there are multiple reasons that lead to such adjournments. Though the section makes adjournments and that too not for a longer time period as an exception, they become the norm. We are touching upon this provision only to show that any delay on the part of the court or the prosecution would certainly violate Article 21. This is more so when the accused person is under incarceration. This provision must be applied inuring to the benefit of the accused while considering the application for bail. Whatever may be the nature of the offence, a prolonged trial, appeal or a revision against an accused or a convict under custody or incarceration, would be violative of Article 21. While the courts will have to endeavour to complete at least the recording of the evidence of the private witnesses, as indicated by this Court on quite a few occasions, they shall make sure that the accused does not suffer for the delay occasioned due to no fault of his own.” 20. In view of the observation made by the Apex Court, this Court is of the considered opinion that if, under the facts and circumstances of the case, this Page No.# 6/8 Court comes to the finding that there is an undue delay in the completion of the trial, and that the incarceration of the petitioner is long enough, he would be entitled to get bail on the ground of such prolonged incarceration, as in such a case of prolonged incarceration, the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed to the petitioner under Article 21 of the Constitution of India would outweigh the fetter imposed under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985. 21. 21. It is also pertinent to mention herein that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India had granted bail to an 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 passed in SLP Criminal No. 4173/2022), wherein the accused was detained behind bars for one year and six months. 22. In “Nitesh Adhikari Vs. State of West Bengal“ (Order dated 04.05.2022 passed in SLP Criminal No. 5769/2022), Hon'ble 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 and seven months. 18. Similarly in “Md. Salman Hanif Shaikh Vs. State of Gujarat” (Order dated 22.08.2022 passed in SLA Criminal No. 5530/2022), the petitioner was granted bail by the Apex Court on the ground of prolonged incarceration of two years. 23. In “Chitta Biswas Alias Subha Vs. The State Of West Bengal“ (Order dated 07.02.2020 passed in SLP Criminal No. 8823/2019), the Apex Court granted bail to the petitioner, who was facing a trial for possessing a commercial quantity of contraband on the ground of prolonged incarceration of 1 year and 6 month. 24. It appears on perusal of the rulings cited by learned counsel for the petitioner that in all the cases cited by the petitioner, though commercial Page No.# 7/8 quantity of contraband was involved and apparently the embargo of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985 would have been applicable in those cases, however, only because of the fact of the prolonged incarceration of the petitioners, the Apex Court allowed the petitioners to go on bail. 25. In the instant case also, the present petitioner has been detained behind the bars for last 3 years 5 months and the trial is yet to culminate and in view of the facts and circumstances of this case as well as considering the observations made by the Apex Court in the rulings cited hereinabove, wherein, it has dealt with the question of long incarceration of similarly situated petitioners who were before the Apex Court, this Court is of the considered opinion that in the instant case also, the facts and circumstances are such that the long incarceration of the present petitioner outweighs the embargo of Section 37 of the NDPS, Act 1985 and the petitioner is therefore entitled to get bail on the ground of prolonged incarceration only. 26. In view of the above, the above named petitioner is allowed to go on bail of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with two sureties of like amount subject to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Kamrup(M) with the following conditions: i. That the petitioner shall cooperate in the trial of NDPS Case No. 131/2021, which is pending in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Kamrup(M).; ii. That the petitioner shall appear before the Trial Court as and when so required by the Trial Court; 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 Page No.# 8/8 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 Aadhar Card, Driving License, 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 similar offence while on bail. 27. With the above observation, this bail application is accordingly, disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant