Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010043382025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./610/2025 NAZRUL ISLAM KHAN AND ANR. S/O- SALAMAT KHAN, VILL- KALJAR, PS HOWLI, DIST- BARPETA, ASSAM 2: SAFIQUL ISLAM S/O LATE FARHAD KHAN VILL-KALJAR P.S. HOWLI DIST. BARPETA ASSA VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR H R A CHOUDHURY, B BARMAN,MR. H ALI,MR. I A HAZARIKA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/5 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANASH RANJAN PATHAK ORDER 27-03-2025 Heard Mr. HRA Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. H. Ali, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. M. P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam. 2. The petitioners, namely, (i) Nazrul Islam Khan, son of Salamat Khan and (ii) Safiqul Islam, son of late Farhad Khan, both residents of Village-Kaljar, Police Station-Howli, District- Barpeta, Assam, have filed this application under Section 483 BNSS, 2023 on 27.02.2025 praying for their bail in Special (NDPS) Case No. 06/2025 arising out of Kalain P.S. Case No. 269/2024 corresponding to G.R. No. 2237/2024 registered under Sections 22(C)/29 of the NDPS Act, wherein they are accused under Section 22(C) of the NDPS Act and the trial of the case is presently going on in the Court of learned Special Judge (NDPS)-cum-Sessions Judge, Cachar, Silchar. 3. It is submitted by the petitioners that they are the driver and helper of the truck bearing Registration No.AS-01-LC-3705 and in the said public carrier they carried consignment of Pawan Carriers from Guwahati to Aizawl, Mizoram. As such, they were unaware of any such goods loaded in their vehicle for transportation to Aizawl. 4. It is also submitted that being the driver and helper of said public carrier, they are no way involved in the case and should be considered for their bail, considering their detention in custody since 08.12.2024. 5. Matter relates to recovery of (i) 15 numbers of boxes of Triprolidine Hydrochloride and Codeine Phosphate Syrup of brand ‘Blurex’ cough syrup, 120 bottles in each box containing 100 ml per bottle (ii) 32 numbers of boxes of Codeine Phosphate and Triprolidine HCL syrup of brand ‘Berrycof’ syrup, 120 bottles in each box containing 100 ml per bottle from the said public carrier bearing Registration No.AS-01-LC-3705 owned by the petitioner No.1, who is the driver of the said truck, where the petitioner No.2 is the helper of the truck. Page No.# 3/5 6. The said public carrier was intercepted on receipt of specific information at source during a Naka Checking at Dighor Khal Toll Gate under the jurisdiction of Kalain Police Station. Police personnel with due authorisation in presence of independent witnesses seized those NDPS items and brought the petitioners along with those seized NDPS items to the Kalain Police Station. Subsequently, on 08.12.2024, both the petitioners were produced before the Court of learned CJM, Cachar, Silchar and since then they are in custody. 7. Mr. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel relied on a decision of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Lorik Reng Vs. State of Assam, where, the Court granted bail to the driver of the offending vehicle from which 10 cartoons containing 3000 bottles of Codeine Phosphate Best Escuf Cough syrup were recovered finding that the said driver was in judicial custody for about 104 days. 8. By order dated 04.03.2025, the Court called for the scanned copy of said NDPS Case No. 06/2025 along with the copy of Kalain P.S. Case No. 269/2024 from the Court of learned Special Judge (NDPS)-cum-Sessions Judge, Cachar, Silchar. 9. On perusal of the records, it is seen that after due inventory, the seized NDPS items were sent to FSL for its necessary examination and report and the FSL report dated 24.12.2024 confirmed the presence of Codeine (as Codeine Phosphate) in the seized NDPS items. 10. After completion of investigation, police submitted the charge-sheet in said Kalain P.S. Case No.269/2024 on 31.12.2024 vide C.S. No.332/2024 against the petitioners under Sections 22(c)/29 of the NDPS Act. 11. After filing of the charge-sheet in said Kalain P.S. Case No.269/2024 corresponding to G.R. No.2237/2024, the said case was registered and re-numbered as Special (NDPS) Case No. 06/2025 before the Court of learned Special Judge (NDPS)-cum-Sessions Judge, Cachar, Silchar. 12. It is seen from the records of the case that on 18.02.2025, the Court of learned Special Judge (NDPS)-cum-Sessions Judge, Cachar, Silchar framed charge under Section 22(c) of the NDPS Act against the petitioners and fixed 11.03.2025 for evidence of prosecution witnesses. 13. On 11.03.2025 it was found that prosecution witnesses are not present, for which fresh Page No.# 4/5 summons have been issued to them, fixing the matter on 02.04.2025 for evidence of prosecution witnesses. 14. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of X Vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in (2024) INSC 909 = 2024 STPL 12498 SC have held that— “In serious offences once the trial commences and the prosecution starts examining its witnesses, the Court, be it the Trial Court or the High Court should be loath in entertaining the bail application of an accused of the case.” 15. Their Lordships in said X Vs. State of Rajasthan further held that— “15. Over a period of time, we have noticed two things, i.e., (i) either bail is granted after the charge is framed and just before the victim is to be examined by the prosecution before the trial court, or (ii) bail is granted once the recording of the oral evidence of the victim is complete by looking into some discrepancies here or there in the deposition and thereby testing the credibility of the victim. 16. We are of the view that the aforesaid is not a correct practice that the Courts below should adopt. Once the trial commences, it should be allowed to reach to its final conclusion which may either result in the conviction of the accused or acquittal of the accused. The moment the High Court exercises its discretion in favour of the accused and orders release of the accused on bail by looking into the deposition of the victim, it will have its own impact on the pending trial when it comes to appreciating the oral evidence of the victim. It is only in the event if the trial gets unduly delayed and that too for no fault on the part of the accused, the Court may be justified in ordering his release on bail on the ground that right of the accused to have a speedy trial has been infringed.” 16. In the case in hand it is already noticed that after filing the FIR on 07.12.2024, the petitioners were arrested on 08.12.2024 and the charge-sheet in the case was submitted on 31.12.2024. Thereafter, charge under Section 22(c) NDPS Act was framed against the accused petitioners on 18.02.2025. 17. For the reasons above, the above and the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the Case of X Vs. State of Rajasthan, the Court is of the opinion that considering the date of detention of the petitioners in custody since 08.12.2024 it cannot be said that the right of the accused petitioners to have a speedy trial of the case has been infringed. 18. For the reasons above this Court of the view that considering their detention in custody Page No.# 5/5 since 08.12.2024, the petitioners, named above, are not entitled for their bail in said Special (NDPS) Case No. 06/2025 arising out of Kalain P.S. Case No. 269/2024 corresponding to G.R. No. 2237/2024 presently pending before the Court of learned Special Judge (NDPS)- cum-Sessions Judge, Cachar, Silchar. 19. Accordingly, this bail application of the petitioners, (i) Nazrul Islam Khan, son of Salamat Khan and (ii) Safiqul Islam, son of late Farhad Khan in said Special (NDPS) Case No. 06/2025 arising out of Kalain P.S. Case No. 269/2024 stands rejected. JUDGE Comparing Assistant