Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010004832025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./83/2025 PRASENJIT NAMA S/O PINKU NAMA R/O VILL-NORTH BROJOPUR, P.O. BROJOPUR, P.S. BILASPARA DIST. WEST TRIPURA, TRIPURA. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR SISHIR DUTTA, MS S MOCHAHARI,MR S DUTTA,MR. S DUTTA,MS K BORAH Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER Date : 05-03-2025 Heard Mr. S. Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner Prasenjit Nama, who has filed this application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with prayer for bail as he is behind bars since 28.11.2023 in Page No.# 2/4 connection with Special NDPS Case No. 25/2022 arising out of Bazaricherra Police Station Case No. 41/2022 under Section 22 (C)/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 2. Heard Ms. N. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that charge sheet was submitted on 31.12.2022 but only 3 (Three) out of 15 (Fifteen) witnesses have been examined so far. The earlier order passed by this Court rejecting the bail application, was rejected on the basis of wrong submissions. It appears that the possibility of conclusion of trial appears to be remote. The petitioner has been incarcerated for more than 462 (Four Hundred and Sixty Two) days without proper trial. The petitioner is also entitled to bail on the ground of parity as the co-accused Bikash Dutta has already been enlarged on bail on 05.03.2022. Two trucks were apprehended with bottles of cough syrup (codeine phosphate). One truck was found loaded with 4000 bottles and the other truck was found loaded with 3000 bottles. Initially the drivers of these two trucks were arrested but they were enlarged on bail on 27.05.2022. The petitioner was not found in conscious possession of the bottles of cough syrup. Evidence of three witnesses does not implicate the petitioner. 4. The cross-examination of Investigating Officer clearly reveals that the petitioner was arrested only on suspicion. The evidence of other witnesses have also not implicated the petitioner. The petitioner is thus entitled to bail as Section 37 of the NDPS Act does not restrict his bail. 5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has raised serious objection stating that the earlier bail petition was rejected after considering the submissions of Page No.# 3/4 both the sides and after going through the Trial Court Record. Charge sheet has been submitted against the petitioner. A prima facie case has been found against him. There are incriminating materials against the petitioner. 6. It is further submitted that the rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act is applicable and the petitioner is not entitled to bail. 7. I have scrutinized the Trial Court Record. 8. The petitioner has relied on the decision of this Court in Bail Application No. 1636/2020 wherein vide order dated 06.10.2020 it has been observed that :- “13. Turning to the present case at hand, as has been discussed above, it will be found that no contraband article was seized from the possession of the present petitioner, neither he was present at the place of occurrence nor any incriminating material including drugs was recovered from his house. The statement of the co-accused remain unsubstantiated during the course of investigation. Except some vague statement of witnesses that they heard that the accused also run drug business, no any legal evidence surfaced. Even the statement of accused is not recorded under Section 67 of the Act to have certain weight. Thus, no any material has been brought on record to connect the petitioner with the recovery of the contraband from the other accused, to satisfy the criteria that on all probabilities, present accused petitioner can be held guilty for the offence. 14. Obviously, the offence under NDPS Act, provides stringent punishment at the end of trial, including serious restriction on granting bail and in that view of the matter, there must be strong evidence on record, suggesting the complicity of the Page No.# 4/4 accused person with such serious offence. Surmises of events without any cogent material is not enough to bring an offence against an accused to apply the rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.” 9. Reverting back to this case, it is held that the merits of the case are not brought to the fore as trial is progressing. It is true that there has been procrastination of trial. 3 (Three) out of 15 (Fifteen) witnesses have been examined so far. However, at this juncture, it cannot be conclusively held that the petitioner’s right to liberty has been curtailed. The offence is of serious nature and thus, the ground of parity is not taken into consideration and so is the length of detention. 10. Petition with prayer for bail is rejected at this stage. However, the petitioner is at liberty to subsequently apply for bail if trial is procrastinated any further. The Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial for speedy disposal of this case. 11. In terms of the above observation, this Bail Application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant