Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010017872025 2025:GAU-AS:1269 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./269/2025 TEZ BAHADUR CHETRY AND ANR. S/O TEK BAHADUR CHETRY R/O JAGUN FOREST GAON, JAGUN,P.S. LEKHAPANI PIN CODE-786179 DIST. TINSUKIA 2: BIMAL CHETRY R/O JAGUN AHOM PATHER PS-LEKHAPANI DISTRICT-TINSUKIA PIN-78617 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. K K DEY, MR V K BAROOAH Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER Date : 07.02.2025 Heard Mr. K.K. Dey, learned counsel for the accused and Mr. P.S. Page No.# 2/5 Lahkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam, appearing for the State respondent. 2. This application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, is preferred by accused, namely, 1. Tez Bahadur Chetry, and 2. Bimal Chetry, who have been languishing in jail hazot, in connection with NDPS Case No. 38/2024, arising out of Lekhapani P.S. Case No. 21/2024, under Section 21(c)/29 of NDPS Act, 1985, pending in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) No.1, (NDPS)- cum- Special Judge, NDPS, Margherita, Tinsukia, for grant of bail. 3. It is to be noted here that, above noted case has been registered on the basis of one FIR lodged by one SI (P), namely, Pranjal Phukan of Lekhapani P.S. on 06.05.2024. 4. The allegation in the F.I.R dated 06.05.2024, is that acting on a tip off, the informant with other staffs, on 05.05.2024, at about 4.30 P.M. apprehended one Dipak Chetry and Bimal Chetry, with one motor cycle, while they were handing over drugs to another accused, namely, Tez Bahadur Chetry, near Phaneng Keniya Bridge, 2 No. Udaipur and recovered 10 soap boxes containing suspected Heroine, in white colour carry bags, weighing 112 grams in the said soap boxes and seized the same in presence of witnesses. Thereafter, search was conducted in the house of Dipak Chetry and recovered 14 packets of suspected Heroine in 14 soap boxes in one Almirah placed at the corner of the house and on weighing the same; they found its weight to be 164 grams and thereafter, seized the same in the presence of the witnesses. And during preliminary enquiry it was found that aforementioned accused persons had collected the said contraband substances from Santosh Chetry and Rekha Chetry of No. 3 Udaypur village. 5. Mr. Dey, learned counsel for the accused submits that the accused are Page No.# 3/5 innocent and no way involved with the offence alleged in the FIR and they are languishing in jail hazoot since 06.05.2024 and that they will appear before the learned trial court regularly and that the accused are ready to face trial and will appear before the court on each and every date and therefore, it is contended to allow this petition. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Lahkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam, submits that the I.O., during investigation had collected sufficient materials against the accused persons and that the case is pending at the stage of framing of charge and if the accused are enlarged on bail at this stage, it will cause delay in trial. Mr. Lahkar further submits that the quantity of contraband substances recovered from the possession of the accused is of commercial quantity and as such the accused have to satisfy the twin requirement of section 37 of the NDPS Act but the accused have failed to satisfy the same. Therefore, Mr. Lahkar, learned Additional P.P. has contended to dismissed the petition. 7. Having heard the submission of learned Advocates of both the parties, I have carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record and also perused the scanned copy of the record along with the up-to-date status report with the assistance of Mr. Lahkar, learned Additional P.P. 8. It appears that the contraband substances allegedly recovered from the possession of the accused are of commercial quantity i.e.( 112 grams + 164 grams= 276 grams). And since the total quantity of contraband substances recovered here in this case is of commercial quantity as such the embargo under Section 37 of the NDPS Act would come into play here in this case and the accused have to satisfy the twin requirement of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. 8.1. But, from the submissions of learned counsel for the accused and also Page No.# 4/5 from the scanned copy of the record this court is unable to derive satisfaction that the accused are not guilty of the offence and that they will not commit any offence while on bail. 8.2. And unless these two conditions are satisfied with, the accused cannot be released on bail, as held 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] and also in the case of Narcotics Control Bureau vs. Kashif, in Criminal Appeal No. 5544 of 2024 [arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 12120 of 2024]. 9. It is to be noted here that in the case of Ajay Kumar Singh @ Pappu (Supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court 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.” 10. It is also to be note here that in the case of Kashif (Supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “39. The upshot of the above discussion may be summarized as under: (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 Page No.# 5/5 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. ………………………………………………...” 11. Considering above and also the nature and gravity of the offence allegedly committed by the present accused involving commercial quantity of the contraband substances and its impact upon the society as well as collective interest of the society and when the same are balanced against the individual interest of the accused, the delay cannot be a persuasive ground for granting bail. [See – NCB vs. Mohit Agarwal, reported in (2022) 0 Supreme (SC) 619]. 12. In the result, I find this petition bereft of merit and accordingly, the petition stands dismissed. 13. However, the learned trial court is requested to expedite the trial and conclude the same as soon as practicable, without granting any adjournment to either of the parties. In terms of above, this bail application stands dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant