Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010209492024 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./3095/2024 GIASUDDIN @ GIAS UDDIN AHMED S/O HABIBOR RAHMAN, R/O VILL- DEKDHOWA, P.S.-MORNOI, DIST- GOALPARA, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR F HAQUE, MR A ISLAM,MR. S K M ALOMGIR,MR. S K TALUKDAR Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MALASRI NANDI ORDER Date : 20.01.2025 Heard Mr. F. Haque, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R.R. Kaushik, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. By this bail application filed under section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraskha Sanhita, 2023, the accused petitioner namely, Giasuddin Page No.# 2/4 @ Gias Uddin, has prayed for bail in connection with SPL(NDPS) Case No. 32/2023 under Section 22(c)/29 of NDPS Act, 1985, pending in the court of learned District and Sessions Judge, Goalpara. 3. Learned counsel for the accused/petitioner submits that the petitioner has been detained in custody since 29.07.2023. It is also submitted that the petitioner is no way connected with the alleged offence and nothing was recovered from the possession of the petitioner as alleged in the FIR. It is further submitted that on the basis of the statement of the co-accused, the petitioner has been implicated in this case. He is a labour by profession. 4. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that five numbers of witnesses have been examined and no one has given any adverse statement against the petitioner. The petitioner was arrested solely on suspicion. In view of the acquisition spelt out against the petitioner as well as considering the period of detention, bail may be granted to the petitioner. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Kaushik, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that charge was framed on 12.01.2024. Out of nine witnesses, five witnesses have been examined. As the commercial quantity of Codeine Phosphate was recovered and as such, Section 37 of NDPS Act is attracted herein this case. Considering the fact as well as the nature of the offence, bail may not be granted to the petitioner at this stage of trial. 6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned Page No.# 3/4 counsel for the parties. I have also perused the scanned copy of trial court records including the evidence of the witnesses. 7. It appears that the petitioner was arrested on 29.07.2023. Charge was framed on 12.01.2024 and thereafter, summons were issued to the witnesses. Admittedly, commercial quantity of Codeine Phosphate was recovered in connection with the case when unloaded from a truck and the petitioner was actively participated in unloading the same along with other co-accused. Out of nine witnesses, five witnesses have already been examined. Apparently, there is no delay in proceeding of the case. 8. The NDPS Act is a special Act with an inbuilt mechanism in the form of Section 37 relating to bail. The commercial quantity of contraband were recovered in this case. 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chandrakeshwar Prasad Vs. State of Bihar, reported in (2016) 9 SCC 443, has laid down in clear terms that interest of the society is a relevant factor to be taken into account while considering the prayer for bail. For ready reference, the relevant paragraphs of the said case are extracted herein below: "10. This Court in Rajesh Ranjan Yadav @ Pappu Yadav v. CBI through its Director (2007) 1 SCC 70 balanced the fundamental right to individual liberty with the interest of the society in the following terms in paragraph 16 thereof: "We are of the opinion that while it is true that Article 21 is of Page No.# 4/4 great importance because it enshrines the fundamental right to individual liberty, but at the same time a balance has to be struck between the right to individual liberty and the interest of society. No right can be absolute, and reasonable restrictions can be placed on them. While it is true that one of the considerations in deciding whether to grant bail to an accused or not is whether he has been in jail for a long time, the court has also to take into consideration other facts and circumstances, such as the interest of the society." 10. On consideration of the matter in its entirety, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the accused/petitioner at this stage of trial. Therefore, prayer for bail is rejected. However, trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the case. 11. The observation made above, shall confine for the purpose of disposal of this bail application only and shall not in any way affect the proceeding of the trial. 12. In view of the above, the bail application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant