Bail Appln. 2571/2025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2571/2025 ACHCHELAL SAHANI SON OF LATE MUSHAR SAHANI R/O WARD NO. 09, VILL- MATHURAPUR, PO. 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, MS N SULTANA,MS S BEGUM Advocate for the Respondent : SC, NCB, BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER 09.12.2025 Heard Ms. S.K. Nargis, learned counsel for the accused and Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned Standing Counsel for the N.C.B. 2. This bail application, under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, is preferred by accused, namely, Sri Achchelal Sahani @ Akshaylal Sahani, who has been languishing in jail hazot, in connection with the N.C.B. Crime No. 28/2021, under Section 8(c) read with Sections 20(b)(ii)(c)/29 of the NDPS Act. GAHC010174432025 Rajib Kumar Roy Digitally signed by Rajib Kumar Roy Date: 2025.12.11 11:53:00 +05'30' Bail Appln. 2571/2025 3. Notably, aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of one complaint, lodged by one Phani Narjinary of NCB, on 06.10.2021. The allegation in the complaint against the accused is that acting on a tip off he has intercepted one Truck, bearing registration No. NL-01-AD- 3773, from Jorabat, Meghalaya and recovered 426.910 kg of Ganja from the possession of Pavan Kumar Singh, Nunu Babu Mahato along with the Truck and seized the same preparing seizure list. 4. Ms Nargis, learned counsel for the accused submits that the accused was arrested on 25.10.2021, and he is behind the bar for last 4 years 23 days. Ms. Nargis also submits that this is the second bail application and the earlier application was rejected by this Court directing the learned Trial Court to expedite the trial. But, in spite of such direction, the learned Trial Court has failed to expedite the trial and so far, it has examined 5 witnesses only, out of 8 witnesses, cited in the charge sheet. Ms. Nargis also submits that on account of delay in trial, the right to speedy trial of the accused, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is violated. Her further submission is that nothing was recovered from the possession of the accused and except however, the C.D.R. She also assured that in the event of grant of bail he will appear before the learned Trial Court regularly. Ms. Nargis has referred following cases in support of her submission:- (i) State (By NCB) Bengaluru v. Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta & Anr., reported in (2022) 12 SCC 633; (ii) Shreyansh Jhabak v. The State of Chattisgarh [Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).5458/2021. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Keyal, learned Standing Counsel for Bail Appln. 2571/2025 the NCB, has vehemently opposed the petition. He submits that the offences are serious in nature and besides, the accused is habitual offender with 4 cases pending against him. Mr. Keyal, further submits that charge was framed against the accused on 17.02.2024 and thereafter, 5 witnesses are examined and trial is going on and it will be completed soon. He also submits that being the contraband substances seized herein this case, are of commercial quantity, the accused has to satisfy the twin requirements of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. And here in this case, the accused failed to satisfy the same. And as such, the accused cannot be granted bail and therefore, it is contended to dismiss the petition. Mr. Keyal has also referred following decisions in support of his submissions:- (i) Union of India v. Namdeo Ashruba Nakade [SLP(Crl.) No.9792/2025]; (ii) Union of India v. Vigin K. Varghese, reported in 2025 Legal Eagle (SC) 1176. 6. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties, I have carefully gone through the petition as well as the documents placed on record and also perused the scanned copy of the record along with the status report received from the learned Trial Court. Also I have carefully gone through the decisions referred by Ms. Nargis, learned counsel for the accused in Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta (supra) and Shreyansh Jhabak (supra) and also gone through the decisions referred by Mr. Keyal in Namdeo Ashruba Nakade (supra) and Vigin K. Varghese (supra). 7. It is not in dispute that the accused was arrested on Bail Appln. 2571/2025 25.10.2021 and since then, he is languishing in jail hazot for last 4 years 23 days and it appears that out of 8 witnesses cited in the final complaint, 5 have already been examined and scanned copy of the record received from the learned Trial Court reveals that trial is going on. It is a fact that there is delay, but the same appears to be not inordinate delay and not solely attributable to the prosecution side and in that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the delay in trial in this case violates the right to speedy trial and thereby violated his fundamental right as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Abdul Rahman Antuley & Ors. v. R.S. Nayak & Anr., reported in (1992) 1 SCC 225. Moreover, as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vigin K. Varghese (supra), the rigors of Section 37 has to be harmonized with the right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and that the High Court has sound discretion to consider the same. 8. It appears that the accused is involved in drug trafficking cases in an organized manner and in view of the proposition laid down in the case of Namdeo Ashruba Nakade (supra), the question of dispensing with mandatory requirement of Section 37 of the NDPS Act does not arise. 9. It is a fact that nothing has been recovered from the possession of the accused, but it appears that 426.910 kg of ganja has been recovered from the possession of the co-accused persons and the CDR reveals infrequent conversation between the co-accused and the present accused and as such, it cannot be said that there is no material Bail Appln. 2571/2025 against the accused. It is well settled that statement of co-accused recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act cannot be taken note of in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in (2021) 4 SCC 1. But, in the case in hand, as stated above, the CDR details collected by the respondent authority shows infrequent conversation between the present accused with that of the co-accused, from whose possession 426.910 kg of ganja were allegedly recovered. It is to be noted here that as held in the case of Union of India v. Ajay Kumar Singh @ Pappu [Criminal Appeal No.952/2023, arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.2351/2023] and also in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of NCB v. Mohit Agarwal [Criminal Appeal Nos.1001-1002 of 2022, arising out of petitions for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.6128-29 of 2021], the accused has to satisfy the requirement of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, being the seized contraband substances are of commercial quantity. But, from the submission of learned counsel for the accused and also from the materials placed on record and also from the scanned copy of the record, this Court is unable to derive its satisfaction that the accused is not guilty of the offence and that he will not commit any offence while on bail. The scanned copy of the record received from the learned Trial Court indicates that as many as 4 cases are pending against the accused, which are shown below and it appears that he is a habitual offender and as the twin condition under Section 37 of the NDPS Act has not been satisfied with, this Court is of the view that the privilege of bail cannot be granted to the accused. Bail Appln. 2571/2025 Sl. No. Name of Arresting Agency Cr. No. Sections Invoked Drug Seized Date of Arrest State 1. NCB, Zonal Unit, Guwahati 07/2021 8(c)/20(b)(ii) & 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985 Ganja- 1586.030 Kg 23.10.2021 Under- trial 2. NCB, Zonal Unit, Guwahati 19/2020 8(c)/20(b)(ii) & 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985 Ganja- 345.840 Kg 08.11.2021 (Shown Arrested) Under- trial 3. NCB, Zonal Unit, Guwahati 23/2021 8(c)/20(b)(ii) & 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985 Ganja- 207.100 Kg Accused Achchelal Sahani was shown arrested Under- trial 4. NCB, Zonal Unit, Guwahati 28/2021 8(c)/20(b)(ii) & 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985 Ganja- 426.910 Kg Accused Achchelal Sahani was shown arrested Under- trial 10. I have carefully gone through the decision in Shreyansh Jhabak (supra), referred by Ms. Nargis, learned counsel for the accused, but this Court is of the view that the said decision would not advance the argument of the learned counsel for the accused, in as much as the accused was arrested on the basis of statement of co- accused and the conclusion that the accused was habitual offender was arrived on the basis of statement of co-accused. But, in the case in hand, the respondent authority has produced the list of cases pending against him. Further, it appears that out of 8 witnesses cited in the final complaint, 5 have already been examined and there remains to examine Bail Appln. 2571/2025 only 3 witnesses and this Court is of the view that if the accused is enlarged on bail at this stage, there is likelihood of further delay in trial. 11. It is also to be noted here that it is well settled in the case of State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan Etc. [Criminal Appeal Nos.3528-3534 of 2025] that prolong trial and lengthy list of witnesses in the charge-sheet does not justify grant of bail and the same cannot outweight the gravity of the offence, the incriminating materials gathered during investigation or the likelihood of tampering the witnesses. The relevant observation is extracted herein below for ready reference:- “The mere filing of the charge-sheet, the existence of a long list of witnesses, or the possibility of delay in trial, cannot, by themselves, constitute valid reasons to dilute the gravity of the offence or to disregard the case put forth by the prosecution.” 12. Under the given facts and circumstances, this Court find no merit in this petition and accordingly, the same stands dismissed. However, the learned Trial Court is requested to expedite the trial and to conclude the same, as soon as practicable. JUDGE Comparing Assistant