Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010002882025 2025:GAU-AS:2594 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./52/2025 LAL MIAH S/O LATE ABBAS ALI R/O VILL- KANAIMARA PART-I, P.S. SOUTH SALMARA, DIST. SOUTH SALMARA MANKACHAR, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M AHMED, MD I H LASKAR Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 11.03.2025 1. Heard Mr. H.R.A Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. M. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P.S. Lahkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 2. This application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 has been filed by Page No.# 2/4 the petitioner, namely, Lal Miah, who has been detained behind the bars since 01.12.2024 in connection with South Salmara P.S. Case no. 200/2024 registered under Section 20 (a) (b) (B) (C) of NDPS Act, 1985. 3. The gist of accusation in this case is that, on 30.11.2024 one Akashi Neog, SI of police had lodged an FIR before the In-Charge of Kharubandha Police Outpost under South Salmara Police Station, inter alia, alleging that a secret information was received through reliable sources regarding contribution of huge quantity of cannabis on a plot of land which was owned by the present petitioner, namely, Lal Miah. On receipt of the information a police team proceeded to village Kanaimara Part - I and found large area under cultivation of suspected cannabis plant of about 7-8 feet height. The police team cut the cannabis plants therefrom and collected the same which weighed abou 1.5 KG. Thereafter, the police team searched the house of the present petitioner and during search operation in plastic polythene bag, some processed cannabis was found. On weighing it was found that the weight of the same was 2276 grams. 4. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though this case has been registered under Section 20 (B) (2) (c) of the NDPS Act, however, it has been wrongly registered under said provision as the offence regarding cultivation of cannabis is punishable under Section 20 (a) read with 20 (b) (i) of NDPS Act, 1985 where the punishment regarding cultivation of cannabis plant is prescribed up to 10 (ten) years of imprisonment and also a fine which may extend to Rs. 1,00,000/-. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the processed cannabis which was recovered from the house of the petitioner which weight was 2276 grams is ganja and therefore, it is less than commercial Page No.# 3/4 quantity. Learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, submits that in this case the offence which is alleged to have been committed by the petitioner is under Section 20 (a) /20 (b) (i) and 20 (b) (ii) (B) of the NDPS Act, 1985 for which the maximum period of detention is 60 (sixty) days only and the petitioner has already undergone detention for more than 100 (hundred) days. On the event, learned counsel for the petitioner has also cited a ruling of Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Raja Bhaiya Singh vs. State of M.P. (Criminal Revision no. 1813 of 2020). 6. On the other hand, Mr. P.S. Lahkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has produced the case diary of South Salmara P.S. Case no. 200/2024 and has submitted that the FSL report of the samples sent to the Forensic Laboratory has been received and according to FSL report, the contraband which was seized from the house of the petitioner is found to be cannabis (ganja). 7. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsels for both the sides and have perused the materials available on record including the case diary of the South Salmara P.S. Case no. 200/2024 which has been produced by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. On perusal of the records that the main accusation against the petitioner is twofold. Firstly, he has been accused of indulging in large scale of cannabis cultivation. The unauthorized cannabis cultivation is prohibited under Section 8 of the NDPS Act, 1986 and punishment has been prescribed under Section 20 (a)/ 20 (b) (i) of the NDPS Act, 1985 which provides for a punishment of Rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to 10 (ten) years. Thus on plain reading of the penal provisions it appears that the statutory period of detention of offence under the aforesaid provision under Section 187 of BNSS would be 60 (sixty) days only. As regards Page No.# 4/4 the contraband which was recovered from the residence of the son of the present petitioner is concerned, the weight of same is also less than commercial quantity and therefore the offence would be under Section 20 (b) (ii) (B) of the NDPS Act, for the said offence also the maximum period of detention under Section 187 of BNSS is 60 (sixty) days. 8. The petitioner has already been detained for more than 100 (hundred) days, therefore, in view of the facts discussed above, he is entitled to get bail in this case. The petitioner, namely, Lal Miah is therefore allowed to go on bail of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety of like amount subject to the satisfaction of learned Special Judge, South Salmara, Hatsingimari with following conditions :- (i) That the petitioner shall co-operate in the investigation; (ii) That the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any persons who may be acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade such persons from disclosing such facts before the Investigating Officer or to any Court. 9. The bail application is accordingly disposed of. Send back the case diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant