Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010012062025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./173/2025 ARTI KUMARI @ CHANDANI KUMARI W/O GAUTAM KUMAR R/O VILL-KAMTA, P.S. HILSA DIST.NALDA, BIHAR. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR S RAHMAN, MR U PANDEY,MS. S PHUKAN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 27.02.2025 1. Heard Mr. S Rahman, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Also heard Mr. R.J Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 3. This application under Section 483 of BNSS has been filed by the petitioner namely Arti Kumari @ Chandani Kumari who has been detained Page No.# 2/4 behind the bars since 09.01.2024 in connection with Special NDPS Case No. 18/2024 under Section 20(b)(ii)(C)/29 of the NDPS Act corresponding to Rangia GRPS Case No. 05/2024. 4. The gist of accusation in this case is that the petitioner is facing trial in the NDPS Case No. 18/2024 before the Court of learned Special Judge, NDPS, Rangia for possessing about 23.576 kg of suspected Ganja. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner and the co-accused namely Gautam Kumar are husband and wife and the seized contraband was recovered from the possession of the husband only. He submits that the petitioner has been implicated in this case merely because she happens to be the wife of the accused Gautam Kumar. 6. He further submits that the prosecution side has already examined the Seizing Officer of the case as P.W-1 and during his cross-examination, the P.W-1 has deposed before the Trial Court that he had not seen any bag in the hands of Chandani Kumari and therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it implies that nothing was found from the possession of the present petitioner. He therefore, prays for allowing the petitioner to go on bail. 7. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. R.J Baruah, has vehemently opposed the ground of bail of the present petitioner on the ground that both the accused persons charge-sheeted in this case are husband and wife in relationship and the seized contraband was recovered from 3(three) bags which were being carried by the accused persons. 8. He also submits that the seizure list in this case shows that the contraband was recovered from both the accused persons, including the present petitioner and the present petitioner has also put her signature in the said seizure list where it is categorically mentioned that the seized contraband was Page No.# 3/4 recovered from possession of her husband as well as herself. 9. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submits that out of 11(eleven) listed witnesses, only 3(three) have been examined and the said witnesses have implicated the present petitioner. He further submits that 8 witnesses are yet to be examined and therefore, at this stage, there are sufficient incriminating materials against the present petitioner. He also submits that as the contraband seized in the case is of commercial quantity, embargo of Section 37 is applicable in this case. 10. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the sides and have gone through the scanned copy of the case record of Special NDPS Case No. 18/2024 requisitioned in connection with this case. It appears that the main thrust of the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner is that as the P.W-1 has stated in his cross-examination that he had not seen any bag in the hands of the present petitioner, it may be safely referred that she was not having possession of the seized contraband. However, in his examination-in-chief, the P.W-1 has deposed that the seized contraband was recovered from the possession of both the accused persons. Moreover, 8(eight) witnesses are yet to be examined by the prosecution side. 11. On perusal of the seizure list also it appears that the seized contraband was recovered from the possession of both the accused persons including the present petitioner. Therefore, at this stage, it appears that there are incriminating materials against the present petitioner in the records and as the quantity of contraband recovered in the case is of commercial quantity, the embargo of Section 37 of the NDPS case is applicable in this case. 12. Hence, at this stage, this Court has considered to reject the prayer for bail. Page No.# 4/4 13. This bail application is accordingly disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant