Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010193742025 2025:GAU-AS:13295 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2877/2025 ACHCHELAL SAHANI S/O- LATE MUSHAR SAHANI. R/O- WARD NO. 09, VILL.- MATHURAPUR, P.O.- MATHURAPUR, P.S.- TURKAULIA, DIST.- EAST CHAMPARAN, BIHAR- 845429. VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SC, NCB. Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. S K NARGIS, A SAHA,MS N SULTANA,MS S BEGUM Advocate for the Respondent : SC, NCB, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER 24.09.2025 1. Heard Ms. S.K. Nargis, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. R. Hussain, learned counsel for NCB. 2. This application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 has been Page No.# 2/7 filed by the petitioner, namely, 1. Achchelal Sahani, who has been detained behind the bars since 08.11.2021 in connection with NDPS Case No. 25/2021, arising out of NCB Crime No.19/2020 registered under Sections 20(b)(ii)(c)/29 of NDPS Act, pending before the Court of learned Special Judge, Kamrup, Amingaon. 3. The gist of the accusation in this case is that on receipt of an information through reliable sources regarding transportation of huge quantity of ganja in a truck bearing registration no.PB-02-DV- 7108 and a naka checking was organized and the said truck was intercepted and during search of the said truck, total 345.840 kg of suspected ganja was recovered from the said truck. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is no way connected with the offence alleged in the complaint petition. She further submits that he was apprehended mainly on the basis of CDR details as well as statement of the co- accused namely, Manjinder Singh, who was arrested in connection with this case. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in the meanwhile, a coordinate Bench of this Court has allowed the co-accused Manjinder Singh to be released on bail mainly on the ground of prolonged incarceration in Bail Appln. No.125/2025 (order dated 18.06.2025). 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been detained behind the bars for more than 3 Page No.# 3/7 years 10 months and nothing was seized from his possession. Further, he submits that there is no scope of an early culmination of the trial and therefore, the incarceration undergone by the petitioner may be regarded as long enough to give him benefit of bail on that ground. 7. She has cited rulings of the Apex Court in support of her submission to bring home the point that the prolonged incarceration of the petitioner has outweighed the embargo of Section 35 of NDPS Act, 1985. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for NCB prays for filing a written objection. It appears from the order sheet that on last occasion, when the matter was listed i.e. on 03.09.2025, no such prayer for filing of written objection was made by the NCB. Hence, when the scanned copy of the records of the trial court has been received, seeking of further time for filing written objection appears to be only delay the disposal of this bail application when the petitioner is primarily approach this Court on the basis of violation of his fundamental right on the ground of prolonged incarceration. 9. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and have gone through the materials on record including the scanned copy of the trial court records which were requisitioned in connection with this case. 10. The Supreme Court of India in “Mohd Muslim Hussain Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)" reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 352'” has Page No.# 4/7 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". 11. The Apex Court in "Rabi Prakash Vs. State of Orissa" reported in “2023 SCC Online SC 1109,” has observed 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." 12. In this regard the observations made by the Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Another reported in AIR 2022 SC 3386 are relevant, same are quoted here in below: "49. Sub-section (1) mandates courts to continue the proceedings on a day-to-should reach the logical end. Various directions have been issued by this Court day basis till the completion of the evidence. Therefore, once a trial starts, it 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 Page No.# 5/7 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." 13. In the instant case also, as the petitioner has been detained behind the bars for more than 3 years 11 months and the trial has progressed very slowly as only two out of ten listed prosecution witnesses have been examined. 14. This court is of the considered opinion that the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner may be regarded as long enough to have cause infringement of his fundamental right guaranteed to him under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and as such it would out way the fetters imposed under Section 37(1)(b) Page No.# 6/7 (ii) of the NDPS Act, 1985. This Court is therefore of the considered opinion that petitioner is entitled to get bail on the ground of prolonged incarceration. 15. In view of the above, the above-named petitioner, is allowed to go on bail of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh only) with two sureties of like amount subject to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, Kamrup, Amingaon with the following conditions - i. That the petitioner shall cooperate in the trial of NDPS Case No. 25/2021, which is pending in the Court of learned Special Judge, Kamrup, Amingaon. 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; iv. That the petitioner shall provide his contact details including photocopies of his Aadhar Card or Driving License or PAN card, mobile number, and other contact details before the Trial Page No.# 7/7 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; 16. Accordingly, this bail application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant