Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010064042025 2025:GAU-AS:5869 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./906/2025 SAIKHONGAM HAOKIP S/O- LATE PAOJATONG HAOKIP, R/O- VILL- M SONGPI, JOUJANG P.O. MOTBUNG P.S.GAMMON SAPARMEINA DIST. SENAPATI,MANIPUR, PIN-795107 VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA REP BY THE SPECIAL PP, NCB Advocate for the Petitioner : DARAK ULLAH, MS A HUSSAIN,SABRISH AHMED Advocate for the Respondent : SC, NCB, Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANASH RANJAN PATHAK 13/05/2025 Heard Mr. S Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. M Deka, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. S C Keyal, learned Standing counsel, NCB for the respondent. 2. The petitioner, namely, Shri Saikhongam Haokip, son of Late Paojatong Haokip, resident of Village-M. Songpi, Joujang, P.O. Motbung, P.S. Gamnon Saparmeina, District-Senapati, Manipur, has filed this application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023, on 24.03.2025, praying for his bail in NDPS Case No. 16/2024 registered under Sections 21(C)/29 of NDPS Act arising out of NCB Guwahati Crime No. 12/2023, presently pending for trial before the learned Special Judge (NDPS)-cum- Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Kamrup (Metro), Guwahati, wherein he was arrested on 01.08.2023 and is in custody since then. 3. Petitioner earlier approached this Court for his bail which was rejected on 14.11.2024 due to wrong submission on the part of the counsel for the petitioner, wherein it was submitted that the trial of the case has already been completed and the judgment is awaited. 4. Mr. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner placed before the Court that the trial of said NDPS Case No. 16/2024 is still going on and as on date, only 4 prosecution witnesses have been examined by the Court of learned Special Judge (NDPS)-cum-Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Kamrup (Metro), Guwahati. 5. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case and he was just a bearer of the consignment containing alleged contraband items and was not aware of the possession of the contraband items at the time of recovery as well as seizure by the Investigating Officer. 6. It is also alleged on behalf of the petitioner that the Investigating Authority did not comply with the procedure of charge and seizure, the standing order dated 15.03.1998 pertaining to the quantity in respect of NDPS items recovered and that as he is in custody since 01.08.2023, he should be considered for bail in said NDPS Case No. 16/2024 arising out of NCB Guwahati Crime No. 12/2023. Page No.# 3/4 7. The matter relates to recovery of total 0.673 kgs. of Heroine, which is much more than commercial quantity, from the conscious possession of the petitioner from Room No. 16 of Goswami Lodge, near Down Town, Guwahati on 01.08.2023 while the petitioner was in the said Lodge along with another, namely, Bijay Gupta, who arrived at Guwahati from Manipur in a Maruti Gypsy bearing registration No. MM-03-P-5705. 8. On being tested by the Drug Detection Kit from each of the 59 soap cases, from which said Heroine were recovered, those gave positive result for Heroine. Accordingly, the 59 soap cases along with the NDPS substances were seized on 01.08.2023 from the conscious possession of the petitioner and one Bijay Gupta from the said Room No. 16 of Goswami Lodge, noted above, following the due procedure, making proper seizure report Annexure-A and Annexure-B along with those NDPS items. The Maruti Gypsy vehicle of the petitioner was also seized on 01.08.2023 along with his mobile phone, Driving Licence, Aadhar Card/Bank of Boroda Card/RuPay Debit Card, Driving Licence and cash amount carried by him. The FSL report dated 06.11.2023 pertaining to the seized items recovered from the possession of the petitioner gave positive result for Heroine. After completion of investigation, offence report was submitted before the learned Special Judge (NDPS)-cum-Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Kamrup (Metro), Guwahati against the petitioner and another under Sections 20(C)/21(C)/29 of the NDPS Act, 1985. On 23.02.2024, charge under Sections 21(C)/29 of the NDPS Act was framed against the petitioner and another accused, Bijay Gupta. 9. It is seen that after framing of charge on 23.02.2024 in said NDPS Case No. 16/2024 arising out of NCB Guwahati Crime No. 12/2023, the evidence of prosecution witness No. 1 was recorded on 02.05.2024 and up-to 03.05.2024, the prosecution has examined 4 (four) of its witnesses. 10. It is pointed out by Ms. Deka, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. S C Keyal, learned Standing counsel, NCB that already in two other cases, the petitioner is found to be an accused under the NDPS Act. However, Mr. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in one of such cases, the petitioner has already been acquitted and in another, trial is going on in which he is on bail. 11. 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.” 12. Their Lordships in said X -Vs.- State of Rajasthan further held that — “Over a period of time, Page No.# 4/4 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. 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.” 13. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and considering the materials available in the case records as well as the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of X -Vs.- State of Rajasthan (Supra), the Court is of the view that the detention of the petitioner since 01.08.2023 cannot be considered for his bail in said NDPS Case No. 16/2024 as it is found that the right of the accused petitioner has not been infringed. 14. Considering the above, the Court is of the view that the detention of the petitioner in custody since 01.08.2023 cannot be considered for his bail in said NDPS Case No. 16/2024 arising out of NCB Guwahati Crime No. 12/2023 pending before the Court of learned Special Judge (NDPS)-cum- Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Kamrup (Metro), Guwahati. 15. Accordingly, this bail application of the petitioner, Shri Saikhongam Haokip, son of Late Paojatong Haokip, in said NDPS Case No. 16/2024 arising out of NCB Guwahati Crime No. 12/2023 stands rejected at this stage. JUDGE Comparing Assistant