Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010014882025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./205/2025 PRABHAKAR SANJAY S/O SRI AMAR SINGH R/O GALI NO.03, SHYAM VIHAR, COLONY, NEW AMBEDKAR PARK, NARICH, RAMBAG, P.S.EHTMADULA,P.O.YAMUNA BRIDGE,AGRA,PIN- 282006, UTTAR PRADESH. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA (NCB) REP. BY THE SC, NCB Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P DEKA, MR R HOQUE,MR A DAS Advocate for the Respondent : SC, NCB, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER Date : 05.03.2025 1. Heard Mr. R. Hoque, learned counsel for the petitioner Shri Prabhakar Sanjay, who has filed this application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with prayer for bail as he is behind bars since 26.01.2020 in connection with NCB Crime Case No. 26/2021 attached with Spl. Page No.# 2/4 (NDPS) Case No. 21/2022 under Sections 21(C)/29 of NDPS Act, 1985. 2. Heard learned counsel Ms. M. Deka on behalf of learned Standing Counsel Mr. S.C. Keyal for the NCB. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that a notice was issued to the petitioner and the petitioner appeared before the NCB on 26.02.2022. After interrogation the petitioner was arrested by the NCB and since then, the petitioner has been languishing in the jail. It is further submitted that charges were framed vide order dated 05.09.2022, and only 5 (five) witnesses out of 11 (Eleven) witnesses have been examined so far. Trial has been progressing at a snail’s pace. The petitioner is being highly prejudiced. 4. It is further submitted that the petitioner’s conduct reveals that he will co- operate with the remaining part of the trial. During his incarceration, the petitioner’s mother had passed away and the petitioner was granted interim bail. The petitioner after observing the customary funeral rites of his mother again surrendered before the trial Court. 5. It is further submitted that although 5(five) witnesses have been examined, there is no incriminating evidence against the petitioner. The petitioner was unaware about the consignment. As a retailer he has received the parcel on behalf of his customers. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent has raised serious objection stating that trial has been procrastinated by the petitioner. On 18.01.2023 and 21.08.2023 witnesses were present but adjournment was taken by the accused. Page No.# 3/4 The petitioner is responsible for booking the consignment containing the contraband. 3280 bottles of codeine were recovered from the truck carrying the consignment. The learned counsel for the NCB has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Narcotics Control Bureau Vs Kashif, reported in 2024 0 Supreme (SC) 1264; wherein it has been observed that :- “39.(i) The provisions of NDPS Act are required to be interpreted keeping in mind the scheme, object and purpose of the Act; as also the impact on the society as a whole. It has to be interpreted literally and not liberally, which may ultimately frustrate the object, purpose and Preamble of the Act. (ii) While considering the application for bail, the Court must bear in mind the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act which are mandatory in nature. Recording of findings as mandated in Section 37 is sine qua non is known for granting bail to the accused involved in the offences under the NDPS Act. (iii) The purpose of insertion of Section 52A laying down the procedure for disposal of seized Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, was to ensure the early disposal of the seized contraband drugs and substances. It was inserted in 1989 as one of the measures to implement and to give effect to the International Conventions on the Narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances.” 7. In reply the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted the petitioner was not found in conscious position of the contraband. The co-accused, who was the prime accused and was directly involved in connection with this case and he was granted bail vide order dated 31.10.2023 in SLP (Crl.) No. 12059 of 2023. 8. I have considered the submissions at the bar with circumspection. Trial has been procrastinated. 6 (Six) witnesses are yet to be examined by the trial Court. Page No.# 4/4 The petitioner has been behind the bars for more than 3 (three) years. The co- accused Abhinav Jodon has already been released on bail. It appears that conclusion of trial appears to be remote. The petitioner has pledged to co- operate with the remaining part of the trial. The petitioner is the sole bread winner of the family. 9. Considering all aspects, petition is allowed. The petitioner shall be enlarged on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) with two local sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. 10. The learned trial Court may impose additional conditions to secure the attendance of the petitioner. 11. In terms of the above observation, bail application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant