Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010029582025 2025:GAU-AS:6242 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./418/2025 JASVINDER SINGH S/O HARJIT SINGH, R/O WARD NO 6, NEPALI BASTI, P.S AND P.O MOREH, SUBDIVISION TENGNOUPAL, DISTRICT CHANDEL, MANIPUR , PIN 795131 VERSUS UNION OF INDIA REP BY THE SC, NCB Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. S K NARGIS, MS N SULTANA,MS S BEGUM Advocate for the Respondent : SC, NCB, Page No.# 2/5 BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER Date : 19.05.2025 Heard learned counsel Ms. S. K. Nargis for the petitioner Jasvinder Singh and learned counsel Ms. M. Deka on behalf of learned Standing Counsel Mr. S. C. Keyal representing the NCB. 2. The petitioner has filed an application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with prayer for bail as he is behind bars since 01.01.2022 in connection with NDPS Case No.148/2022 under Section 22(c)/29 of NDPS Act. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he was arrested on 01.01.2022 and he is behind bars for 3 years 4 months 17 days. 4 out of 9 witnesses have been examined. Trial has been procrastinated, infringing the right of personal liberty of the petitioner. 4. It is submitted that one seizing officer examined as P.W. 4 has not supported the seizure of the contraband. It is further submitted that the contraband was not recovered from the possession of the petitioner, but from the co-accused. The petitioner has been forwarded to custody on the statement of the co-accused. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State (By NCB) Bengaluru Vs. Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta and Anr. and other petitioners and respondents reported in (2022) 12 SCC 633, wherein it has been observed that:- “12. It has been held in clear terms in Tofan Singh v. State of T.N., that a confessional statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act will remain Page No.# 3/5 inadmissible in the trial of an offence under the NDPS Act. In the teeth of the aforesaid decision, the arrests made by the petitioner NCB, on the basis of the confession/voluntary statements of the respondents or the co-accused under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, cannot form the basis for overturning the impugned orders1, 2, 3 4, 5, 6 releasing them on bail. The CDR details of some of the accused or the allegations of tampering of evidence on the part of one of the respondents is an aspect that will be examined at the stage of trial. For the aforesaid reason, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the orders dated 16-9-20191, 14-1-20202, 16-1-20203, 19-12-20194 and 20-1-20206 passed in SLP (Crl.) No. arising out of Diary No. 22702 of 2020, SLP (Crl.) No. 1454 of 2021, SLP (Crl.) No. 1465 of 2021, SLPs (Crl.) Nos. 1773-74 of 2021 and SLP (Crl.) No. 2080 of 2021 respectively. The impugned orders1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 are, accordingly, upheld and the special leave petitions filed by the petitioner NCB seeking cancellation of bail granted to the respective respondents, are dismissed as meritless.” 6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent has raised serious objection stating that the petitioner is booked under heinous offence. The involvement of the petitioner cannot be ruled out. The petitioner was in constant touch with the co-accused Vikram Jaiswal, from whom contraband was recovered. 7. It is submitted that the contraband is 967 grams of Methamphetamine tablets. If the petitioner is enlarged on bail, he will be a threat to the society at large, as it appears that the petitioner will continue with his business of drug peddling. 8. It is further submitted that the conduct of the co-accused is relevant to this case. One co-accused was granted bail, but now at this juncture, the case record reveals that the co-accused has not appeared before the trial Court, procrastinating the trial. 9. It is the petitioner’s co-accused, who has procrastinated the trial and not the court or the prosecution and the court was impelled to issue NBWA against the co-accused. Page No.# 4/5 10. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been highly prejudiced as section 50, notice issued to the petitioner clearly reflects the grounds of arrest were not communicated to the petitioner in a manner understood by the petitioner. Moreover, section 50A, notices were not issued to the relatives of the petitioner. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rabi Prakash Vs. The State of Odisha reported in SLP (Crl.) No(s).4169/2023, whereby order dated 13.07.2023, it was observed that:- “4. As regard to the twin conditions contained in Section 37 of the NDPS Act, learned counsel for the respondent State has been duly heard. Thus, the 1st condition stands complied with. So far as the 2nd condition re: formation of opinion as to whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner is not guilty, the same may not be formed at this stage when he has already spent more than three and a half years in custody. The prolonged incarceration, generally militates against the most precious fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and in such a situation, the conditional liberty must override the statutory embargo created under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act.” 12. I find force in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also scrutinized the trial court records. 13. It appears that the grounds of arrest have not been communicated to the petitioner in a manner understood by the petitioner. It appears that bail may be granted to the petitioner. 14. In view of my foregoing discussions, the petitioner shall be enlarged on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs.1,00,000/- with 2 (two) local sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court under the conditions that:- (i) The petitioner shall refrain from such activities with which he is alleged. Page No.# 5/5 (ii) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court till completion of the trial and (iii) The petitioner shall not exercise threats to the witnesses or try to influence them. 15. On breach of any of the bail conditions, the learned Court is at liberty to cancel the bail granted to the petitioner. 16. In terms of the above observation, the Bail Application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant