Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010224442024 2025:GAU-AS:2017 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./3274/2024 UPENDRA KUMAR GOSWAMI S/O RAMJEE GOSWAMI VILL-JHAWAN KE MATHIYA, SHAHPUR P.O. BIHIYA P.S. BIHIYA DIST. BHOJPUR, BIHAR. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R P SARMAH, MS. U HAZARIKA,MR H DAS,MS. T SOM Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER 25.02.2025 1. Heard Ms. T. Som, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M.P. Goswami, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State of Assam. Page No.# 2/4 2. This application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Upendra Kumar Goswami, who has been detained behind the bars since 19.01.2024, in connection with Sessions NDPS Case No. 213/2024 under Section 20(b)(ii) (C) of the NDPS Act, 1985. 3. The gist of accusation in this case is that on 19.01.2024, one Pranamika Barman, ASI of Police had lodged an FIR before the Officer-In- Charge of GRPS, Guwahati, inter-alia, alleging that on 19.01.2024, at around 5:20 AM during the checking duty at Guwahati Railway Station, the train No. 12423 DN Rajdhani Express standing at Platform No. 1 of Guwahati Railway Station was searched and during the checking duty, the petitioner was found with a grey colour trolley bag sitting in sit No. 8 of the coach No. B-6. On search of the said trolley bag total 26.270 Kgs of suspected ganja was recovered therefrom. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and it is blunted case by GRPS personnel. 5. She submits that there has been a violation of the procedural mandate in not taking drug testing kid while search operation was going on. She also submits that there is a violation of the mandatory requirement of Section 50 of the NDPS Act, 1985. She further submits that the petitioner has been detained behind the bars for last 01 year 1 month and considering the period of detention, he may be allowed to go on bail. 6. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. M.P. Goswami, has vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the present Page No.# 3/4 petitioner on the ground that the quantity of contraband seized in this case is of commercial quantity. Hence, the embargo of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985 is applicable in this case. He further submits that FSL report in this case clearly indicates that the contraband possessed by the petitioner was ganja (cannabis). He also submits that as the recovery in this case was made from the trolley bag carried by the petitioner, the requirement of Section 50 is not applicable in this case. He also submits that considering the nature of the offence, the period of 01 year 1 month may not be regarded as prolonged incarceration, so as to get the benefit of long detention. 7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the sides and have gone through the scanned copy of the case record of NDPS Case No. 213/2024, which was requisitioned from the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 3, FTC, Kamrup(Metro) Guwahati. Since in this case the charge sheet has been laid under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act, 1985 against the present petitioner and the trial has already began, the quantity of contraband involved in this case is of commercial quantity, therefore, apparently, the embargo of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985 is applicable in this case. Since the FSL report clearly indicates that the contraband seized from the possession of the petitioner is found to contain ganja (cannabis). Hence, at this stage, the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner that no drug testing kit was taken by the Seizing Officer at the time of such operation, loses its relevance. Further, as submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, if the recovery is made from a hand bag in the instant case, it is a trolley bag, the requirement of Section 50 of the NDPS Act, 1985 need Page No.# 4/4 not to be followed as held by catena of judgments of the Apex Court. The incarceration of the petitioner though of 1 year 01 month, in the considered opinion of this Court, considering the nature of offence involved, is not long enough to grant the bail on the ground of prolonged incarceration. After perusing the materials available on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the embargo of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985 is applicable in this case. Hence, the prayer for bail is rejected at this stage. 8. This bail application is accordingly dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant