Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010191862025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2806/2025 RANI DEVI W/O DILIP PASWAN R/O MACHUWA ROAD, NEAR GANDHI MAIDAN, P.S. PATNA DIST. PATNA, BIHAR. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR S RAHMAN, MS L MISHRA,MS. S PHUKAN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 18.09.2025 1. Heard Mr. S. Rahman, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. The application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023, has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Rani Devi, who has been detained behind the bars since 22.08.2023 (for more than two years) in connection with NDPS Case No. 69/2024 under Sections 20(b)(ii)(c)/29 of the NDPS Act, 1985. Page No.# 2/4 3. The gist of accusation in this case is that on 23.08.2023, one Madhav Ekka, Sub-Inspector of Police, had lodged an FIR before the Officer-In-Charge of GRPS Guwahati, inter alia, alleging that on 22.08.2023 during joint checking, which was conducted by the police team in the train No. 15658 DN (BP Mail, which was standing at Kamakhya railway station at platform No. 4 for its onwards journey, the petitioners were found to carry luggage containing suspected ganja. On weighing the weight of the said ganja was found to be total 23.990 kgs of ganja. 4. After receipt of the said FIR, the GRPS Case No. 150/2023 was registered and investigation was initiated. Ultimately, on completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was laid against the above petitioner under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is seeking bail mainly on the ground of violation of the fundamental rights of the petitioner guaranteed to her under Article 21 of the Constitution of India on account of prolonged incarceration. He also submits that the co- accused one Sangita Devi has already been granted bail on account of her ailment. He also submits that till date out of ten listed prosecution witnesses only one has been examined. He further submits that the petitioner is ready to face the trial and hence, she may be allowed to go on bail. 6. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has opposed the grant of bail on the ground of the quantity of contraband seized in this case is of commercial quantity and, therefore, the embargo of 37 of NDPS Act, 1985 is applicable in this case. He also submits that the co-accused was granted bail mainly due to the fact that she was suffering from eye ailment and, therefore, humanitarian ground her bail was allowed. Page No.# 3/4 7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the sides. 8. The Apex Court has in various of its rulings has observed that in case of prolonged incarceration in connection with an offence where commercial quantity of contraband is involved, the prolonged incarceration overrides the embargo of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985. 9. In the instant case also, this Court is of the considered opinion that the incarceration of more than two years by the petitioner who is a lady that too when only one of the listed prosecution witness has been examined till date would amount to infringement of her fundamental rights guaranteed to her under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and on that count she is entitled to get bail. 10. For the aforesaid reasons stated, 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 (one of whom should be a resident of the State of Assam), subject to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 5, Kamrup(M) with following conditions:- i. That the petitioner shall co-operate in the trial of NDPS Case No. 69/2024; 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 from disclosing such facts before the Trial Court in the trial pending against the present petitioner; Page No.# 4/4 iv. That the petitioner shall provide her contact details including photocopies of her Aadhar Card or Driving License or PAN card as well as, 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 her 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. 11. This bail application is accordingly disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant