Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010246062024 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./3632/2024 ADAKHO MAO S/O ATHISE MAO R/O PURNA NAMAI RP.O- AOGATE, P.S. AND DIST. SENAPATI, STATE- MANIPUR. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR B P BORAH, MR P J DUTTA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 06.03.2025 1. Heard Mr. B. P. Borah, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R. J. Baruah, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. 2. This application, under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 has been filed by Page No.# 2/5 the petitioner, namely, Adakho Mao, who has been detained behind the bars since 03.05.2024 (for more than 300 days) in connection with Special (NDPS) Case No. 40/2024 arising out of Sarupathar P. S. Case No. 09/2024 registered under Sections 21(c)/25/29 of the NDPS Act, 1985. 3. The gist of accusation in this case is that on 03.05.2024 , one Monuj Hatimuria had lodged an FIR before the Officer-In-Charge of Sarupathar Police Station, inter-alia, alleging that on 02.05.2024 at about 7.06 pm, an information was received by the Officer of Sarupathar Police Station through reliable sources that a huge quantity of heroin is coming from Manipur site in a white-coloured Alto vehicle bearing registration No. AS05S9434. 4. Accordingly, a police team was constituted and a naka was arranged at Sarupathar Police Station, near Sarupathar Police Station. At about 8.00 p.m., two vehicles, namely, one white-coloured Alto vehicle bearing registration No. AS05S9434 and one Maruti Jimny vehicle bearing registration number AS05V5049 were intercepted and on search of the said vehicle, 2849.15 grams of suspected heroin was recovered. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though the petitioner was the driver of the Maruti Alto vehicle from where the contraband was seized, however, he was only driving the vehicle and was not aware about the contents of the goods, which he was carrying. 6. He also submits that in the FIR itself, the main accusation is pointed towards Rashidul Ali @ Babatu and Mujahid Ali of indulging in trafficking of contraband from Dimapur to Uriamaghat. Page No.# 3/5 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though, the accused persons who were named as main accused in the charge sheet have already been granted bail by the Trial Court. However, the petitioner is languishing behind the bars. 8. He submits that there is no material on record which would connect the petitioner with the seized contraband to show that he was having conscious possession of the seized contraband. 9. He further submits that the trial has not yet begun. However, the petitioner has been languishing behind the bars for the last more than 300 days. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there are 66 numbers of listed witnesses in the charge sheet and it is apparent that the trial is not going to conclude at the earliest. 11. Hence, the learned counsel for the petitioner also prays for granting bail on the ground of prolonged incarceration. 12. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the present petitioner on the ground that the quantity of contraband seized in this case is of commercial quality. Hence, the embargo of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985 is applicable to this case. 13. He also submits that the statement of the witnesses as well as that of the present petitioner recorded during investigation, would show that the petitioner was aware about the content of goods, which he was carrying. 14. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the petitioner was having conscious possession of the contraband, which he was Page No.# 4/5 carrying. 15. He also submits that considering the nature of the offence involved, the period of detention already undergone by the petitioner (308 days), may not be sufficient to give him benefit of bail on the ground of prolonged incarceration. 16. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as gone through the scanned copy of the case record of Special NDPS Case No. 40/2024, which was called for in connection with this case. 17. On perusal of the materials available on record, it appears that the vehicle from which the contraband was recovered in this case was driven by the present petitioner only and no one else was there in the same vehicle. 18. It also appears that he was aware that he is being followed by the other four accused in a journey vehicle who, according to him were the actual owner of the seized contraband. 19. At this stage of the trial, after going through the materials available on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that this is not a case where this Court may come to a finding that there are reasonable grounds for believing that a petitioner is not guilty of the offence with which he has been charged with. 20. Therefore, the embargo of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985 is applicable. 21. Moreover, considering the nature of offence involved in this case, the period of detention already undergone, in the considered opinion of this Page No.# 5/5 Court, is not long enough to grant him benefit of bail on the basis of prolonged incarceration. 22. The prayer for bail is, therefore, rejected at this stage. JUDGE Comparing Assistant