Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010019022025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./283/2025 CHUKHU TAPIN @ CHUKU S/O LATE CHUKHU SOLO R/O VIL-MENGI P.S.MENGIO DIST. PAPUM PARE, STATE-ARUNACHAL PRADESH. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. H S BORAH, Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MALASRI NANDI ORDER Date : 12.03.2025 Heard Mr. H.S. Borah, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. S.H. Borah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. By this bail application filed under section 483 of the Bharatiya Page No.# 2/4 Nagarik Suraskha Sanhita, 2023, the accused petitioner namely, Chukhu Tapin @ Chuku, has prayed for bail in connection with Laluk P.S. Case No. 208/2024 under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of NDPS Act, 1985. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the Head Constable in Arunachal Pradesh Armed Police Battalion. It is also submitted that the petitioner has been detained in custody for last 90 days since his arrest on 13.02.2024. It is further submitted that the petitioner borrowed the vehicle from which the contraband was recovered, and the registered owner is a third party. In view of the acquisition spelt out against the petitioner as well as considering the period of detention, bail may be granted to the petitioner. 4. On the other hand, Ms. Borah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has produced the case diary without FSL report. She has submitted that commercial quantity of contraband was recovered in connection with this case. As the commercial quantity of contraband was recovered, Section 37 of NDPS Act is attracted here in this case. During investigation, it appears that the petitioner is very much involved in the alleged offence as such, considering the fact as well as the present status of the case, bail may not be granted to the petitioner at this stage of investigation. 5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. I have also perused the case dairy. 6. It appears that the petitioner was arrested on 13.12.2024. Admittedly, commercial quantity of contraband was recovered from a vehicle in which the petitioner was the sole occupant. The investigation is still in progress. Page No.# 3/4 7. The NDPS Act is a special Act with an inbuilt mechanism in the form of Section 37 relating to bail. The commercial quantity of contraband was recovered in connection with this case. 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chandrakeshwar Prasad Vs. State of Bihar, reported in (2016) 9 SCC 443, has laid down in clear terms that interest of the society is a relevant factor to be taken into account while considering the prayer for bail. For ready reference, the relevant paragraphs of the said case are extracted herein below: "10. This Court in Rajesh Ranjan Yadav @ Pappu Yadav v. CBI through its Director (2007) 1 SCC 70 balanced the fundamental right to individual liberty with the interest of the society in the following terms in paragraph 16 thereof: "We are of the opinion that while it is true that Article 21 is of great importance because it enshrines the fundamental right to individual liberty, but at the same time a balance has to be struck between the right to individual liberty and the interest of society. No right can be absolute, and reasonable restrictions can be placed on them. While it is true that one of the considerations in deciding whether to grant bail to an accused or not is whether he has been in jail for a long time, the court has also to take into consideration other facts and circumstances, such as the interest of the society." 9. On consideration of the matter in its entirety, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the accused/petitioner, at this stage. Therefore, prayer for bail is rejected. Page No.# 4/4 10. In view of the above, the bail application stands disposed of. 11. Send back the case diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant