Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010177632025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2648/2025 UTTAM CHAKRABORTY SON OF LATE ANIL CHAKRABORTY R/O 366 KU9MUD THAKUR LANE, KALYANI DHALESWAR VTC, DHALESWAR, P.O. DHALESWAR, P.S. EAST AGARTALA, SUB-DIV. AGARTALA SADAR DIST. WEST TRIPURA,, STATE- TRIPURA-799007. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA REP BY SC, NCB Advocate for the Petitioner : MR J K Bhuyan, MS. P GHOSH,MS B GOGOI Advocate for the Respondent : SC, NCB, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER 24.09.2025 1. Heard learned counsel, Mr. J. K. Bhuyan for the petitioner who has filed this application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 with prayer for bail as the Page No.# 2/4 petitioner is behind bars since 21.05.2022 in connection with NDPS Case No. 249/2022 arising out of NCB Crime No. 13/2022 under Sections 8(c)/20(b)(ii) (C)/29 of the NDPS Act. 2. Heard learned counsel Ms. M. Deka on behalf of Mr. S. C. Keyal, learned Standing Counsel, NCB. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner has been behind bars for 3 years 4 months 3 days. Trial is progressing at snail’s pace. The petitioner's right to personal liberty has been curtailed as charge was framed way back on 06.02.2023 and only 4 out of 11 witnesses have been examined so far. Since 20.07.2024, not a single witness has been examined by the NCB in a period of 1 year 5 months. The petitioner is thus entitled to bail. 4. Learned counsel for the NCB has raised serious objection stating that 645.880 kgs of Ganja has been recovered from the truck in which the petitioner was found. It is further submitted that most of the officers of the NCB have been transferred and this resulted in the delay in producing the witnesses. Learned counsel for the NCB has submitted that no more delay will be caused and trial would not be procrastinated by the prosecution. 5. I have considered the submissions at the Bar with circumspection. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rabi Prakash vs. The State of Orissa, vide order dated 13.07.2023 in connection with Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s) 4169/2023 , it has been held that:- “As regard to the twin conditions contained in Section 37 of the NDPS Act, learned counsel for the respondent State has been duly heard. Thus, the 1st condition stands complied with. So far as the 2nd condition re: formation of opinion as to whether there are reasonable grounds to Page No.# 3/4 believe that the petitioner is not guilty, the same may not be formed at this Stage when he has already spent more than three and a half years in custody. 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)(i) of the NDPS Act.” 7. The ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rabi Prakash (Supra) is not similar to this case as in Rabi Prakash’s case, only 1 out of 19 witnesses were examined when bail was granted, whereas in the instant case, 4 out of 11 witnesses have already been examined. 8. Learned counsel for the NCB has also relied on the Hon'ble Supreme Court in The State of Karnataka vs. Sri Darshan, reported in 2025 0 Supreme (SC) 1201, wherein it has been held that:- “20.4. Filing of charge sheet or lengthy list of witnesses does not justify grant of bail. 20.4.2. In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs. Rajesh Ranjan (supra), this Court categorically held that: "The High Court could not have allowed the bail application on the sole ground of delay in the conclusion of the trial without taking into consideration the allegation made by the prosecution in regard to the existence of prima facic case, gravity of offence, and the allegation of tampering with the witness by threat and inducement when on bail non- consideration... of the same and grant of bail solely on the ground of long incarceration vitiated the order" 9. Reverting back to this case, it is held that trial is indeed procrastinating. The contention of prolonged incarceration in serious offences is not relevant to this case wherein the accused has been charge sheeted for transporting more than 600 kgs of Ganja. 10. Atleast, at this stage of trial, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Petition stands rejected at this stage. Page No.# 4/4 11. However, the petitioner is at liberty to apply for bail if trial is procrastinated any further by the prosecution or by the Court. 12. In terms of the above observation, this petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant