Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010008922025 2025:GAU-AS:5143 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./143/2025 MAYANK SHARMA SON OF RAKESH SHARMA, R/O HARTALA KANTH ROAD, MAU, P.S- CIVIL LINE, DIST- MURADABAD, UTTAR PRADESH. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR S J SAIKIA, Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER 28.04.2025 Heard Mr. A. Kumar, learned counsel for the accused and Mr. K. Baishya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. 2. This application under Section 483 of the B.N.S.S., is preferred by accused namely, Mayank Sharma, who has been languishing in jail hazot, in connection with the Bazaricherra P.S. Case No. 100/2023, under Sections 22(c)/25/29 of the N.D.P.S. Act, corresponding to Special (N.D.P.S.) Case No. 44/2023, for granting bail. Page No.# 2/5 3. Notably the aforementioned case has been registered on the basis of one F.I.R. lodged by one S.I. Pranab Mili of Churaibari W.P. under Bazaricherra P.S. on 07.05.2023. 4. The essence of allegation, against the present accused, in the F.I.R. dated 07.05.2023, is that acting on a tip off on 06.05.2023, at about 08:30 pm, the informant along with staffs were attending naka checking duty at naka check point of Churaibari W.P. on N.H. 08 and then they had intercepted one Truck, bearing registration No. UP-21-BN-1404, which was coming from U.P. towards Tripura. The Truck was driven by one Mayank Sharma and one Vishal was also present there as helper. Then conducting search in the vehicle, they had found 353 numbers of packets containing 35300 bottles of codeine phosphate Phensedyl Cough Syrup, weighing 4271.3 kgs (without bottle), which were concealed with same Haldiram’s products and thereafter, seized the same in presence of witnesses by preparing seizure list. 5. Mr. Kumar, learned counsel for the accused submits that the accused was arrested on 07.05.2023 and since then he has been languishing in jail hazot. Mr. Kumar further submits that this is the second bail application and the earlier one, being Bail Application No. 269/2024 was dismissed by this court, vide order dated 23.02.2024. Mr. Kumar further submits that after rejection of the first bail application, the accused approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court by filing one Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 6355/2024. But, the same was not entertained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. However, liberty was granted to the accused to prefer fresh bail application before this court if the trial is not commenced within six months. And therefore, the petitioner has approached this court by filing the present petition. 5.1. Mr. Kumar further submits that though some witnesses have been Page No.# 3/5 examined by the learned trial court, yet, there is no immediate prospect of conclusion of trial and that since the accused is languishing in jail hazot for a long period, in view of the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rabi Prakash vs. State of Orissa, reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 1109 and Nitish Adhikary @ Bapan vs. The State of West Bengal, in SLP (Crl.) No. 5769/2022, he is entitled to bail on the ground of long incarceration. Mr. Kumar also submits that he has no criminal antecedent and that he is ready face the trial and will appear before the court on each and every date and therefore, it is contended to allow the petition. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Baishya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent, has vehemently opposed the petition and submits that till date, the learned trial court had examined as many as 5 witnesses and the said witnesses have implicated the accused with the offence alleged in the F.I.R. Mr. Baishya further submits that the accused hails from U.P. and if the bail is granted at this stage, it will not only cause delay in disposal of the case but also there is every possibility of jumping bail. Under such circumstances, Mr. Baishya has contended to dismiss the petition. 7. 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 received from the learned trial court and also the case laws referred by Mr. Kumar, learned counsel for the accused. 8. It is not in dispute that the accused was arrested on 07.05.2023, and since then he has been languishing in jail hazot for almost 2 years. It is also not in dispute that 4271.3 kgs of codeine phosphate Phensedyl Cough Syrup were Page No.# 4/5 seized from the Truck, which was driven by the accused, accompanied by one helper namely Bishal. It is also not in dispute that the contraband substances recovered from the possession of the accused are of commercial quantity and as such, the accused has to satisfy the twin requirements of Section 37 of the NDPS Act that he is not guilty of the offence and he will not commit any offence while on bail. Mr. Kumar, however, has submitted that the accused has no criminal antecedent, yet, from his submission as well as from the materials placed on record, he could not show that the accused is not guilty of the offence as alleged in the F.I.R. which is held to be a mandatory requirement by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Ajay Kumar Singh @ Pappu, in Criminal Appeal No. 952 of 2023 [Arising out of SLP (CRL.) No. 2351 of 2023]. There Hon’ble Supreme Court while setting aside the order of granting bail to the accused involving in commercial quantity of contraband substance, has held as under :- “In view of the above provisions, it is implicit that no person accused of an offence involving trade in commercial quantity of narcotics is liable to be released on bail unless the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such an offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.” 9. It is also to be noted here that Hon’ble Supreme Court in the SLP No. 6355/2024 preferred by the accused, while not entertaining the same, granted liberty to the petitioner to approach this court, if the trial is not commenced within 6 months. But, it appears that the learned trial court had examined as many as 5 witnesses in the meantime and having perused the Page No.# 5/5 evidence recorded so far by the learned trial court, this court is unable to derive its satisfaction that the present accused is not guilty of the offence he is presently being charged. 10. It is also to be noted here that though Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ravi Prakash (Supra) and Nitish Adhikary (Supra) considering the long incarceration, had granted bail to the accused in the said cases, yet, in the present case the trial is in advance stage and 5 witnesses have already been examined and the period, which the accused had undergone during the trial, cannot be termed as long incarceration in view of the fact that he was arrested only on 07.05.2023. Moreover, there is no material to show that there is inordinate delay in trial and that the prosecution side is responsible for the same. 11. Under the given facts and circumstances and also taking note of the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties, I find no merit in this petition and accordingly, the petition stands dismissed. 12. However, the learned trial court is requested to conclude the trial as soon as practicable. JUDGE Comparing Assistant