Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010064912024 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./948/2024 CHANDRA JOY JAMATIA S/O LALIT JAMATIA R/O VILL- DASO CHANDRAPARA, P.O. HADRAI, P.S. TELIAMURA, DIST. WEST TRIPURA, TRIPURA VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA REP BY STANDING COUNSEL DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE, GUWAHATI ZONAL UNIT, GUWAHATI Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M AHMED, MD I H LASKAR Advocate for the Respondent : SC, DRI, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER 04.02.2025 Heard Mr. I.H. Laskar, learned counsel for the accused and Mr. S.C. Keyal, Standing Counsel for theDRI. 2. This application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C., is preferred by accused namely, Chandra Joy Jamatia, who has been languishing in jail hazotsince 13.01.2021, in connection with the Special (NDPS) Case No. 09/2022, arising out of the DRI Case No. 17/CL/NDPS/GANJA/DRI/GZU/2020- Page No.# 2/6 21, under Sections 20(b)(ii)(c)/ 27A/ 29 of the NDPS Act, for granting bail. 3. It is to be noted here that the aforementioned case has been registered on the basis of a complaint lodged by Sri Ramekbal Roy, Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Guwahati Zonal Unit, Guwahati, on 13.01.2021. 4. The essence of allegation against the accused is that on 12.01.2021, one 10 wheeler Container Truck, bearing registration No. AS-01-GC-5985, was intercepted near Khanapara Flyover, while the same was being driven by the present accused accompanied by his handyman, namely KiachinghlaMog and during search 1078.400 kgs of Ganja (cannabis) in 70 packages were recovered from a specially made chamber, behind the driver’s cabin and thereafter, the same were seized in presence of witnesses. 5. Mr. Laskar, learned counsel for the accused submits that the accused was arrested on 13.01.2021, and since then he has been languishing in jail hazot for more than 4 years. Mr. Laskar further submits that altogether 13 witnesses have been cited in the final complaint and out of the said 13 witnesses, only 8 witnesses have been examinedtill date and that the last witness was examined on 04.11.2024 and since then no witnesses have been examined and as such, there is no immediate prospect of conclusion of the trail and on such count, the right to speedy trial of the accused as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, is violated here in this case. Mr. Mr. Laskar referring to a decision of a coordinate bench of this court, in Bail Application No. 4312/2023, submits that considering long incarceration, undergone by the accused, bail was granted to the accused in the said case. Mr. Laskar also submits that the accused is ready to face the trial and he will appear before the court on each and every date and therefore, it is contended to allow the Page No.# 3/6 petition. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Keyal, learned Standing Counsel for the DRI,submits that in fact the trial was delayed on account of absconding of one of the co-accused and the case against the present accused is splited up on 14.12.2022 and since then out of 13 witnesses cited in the final complaint,8 witnesses havealready been examined and that the trial is going on and will be completed very soon. Mr. Keyal further submits that if the bail is granted at this stage to him it will be difficult to procure his attendance, who hails from Tripura. Mr. Keyalalso submits that the contraband substances, so recovered from the possession of the accused are of commercial quantity and as such, the accused has to satisfy the twin requirements of Section 37 of the NDPS Actthat he is not guilty of the offence and he will not commit any offence while on bail. Mr. Keyal also submits that from the materials placed on record it is apparent that none of the aforesaid requirements could be satisfied by the accused and as such, the accused cannot be granted bail at this stage and therefore, it is contended to dismiss the petition. 7. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties, I have carefully gone through the petition as well as the documents placed on record and also perused the scanned copy of the record along with the status report received from the learned trial court. 8. It appears from the status report, dated 24.10.2024, that the final complaint was submitted on 17.01.2022 and charge was framed on 11.01.2023, underSections 20(b)(ii)(c)/27A/29 of the NDPS Act and thereafter, the case was fixed for evidence. Further, it appears that another accused is involved here in this case and due to non-appearance of the aforesaid co-accused the trial could not be proceeded in time and only after splitting up of the case against the Page No.# 4/6 absconder co-accused on 14.12.2022, the trial of the present accused gained momentum. It also appears thatout of 13 witnesses cited in the final complaint,8 witnesses havealready been examined. 9. It is to be noted here thatthe quantity of contraband substances recovered from the possession of the accused are of commercial quantity, i.e. 1078.400 kgs of Ganja (cannabis) and as such, the accused has to satisfy the twin requirements of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, that he is not guilty of the offence and he will not commit any offence while on bail,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 ofUnion 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, inCriminal Appeal No. 5544 of 2024 [arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 12120 of 2024]. 10. 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.” 11. Again 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: Page No.# 5/6 (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 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. ………………………………………………...” 12. In the instant case, from the documents placed on record and also from the submission so advanced by the learned counsel for the accused, this court is unable to derive its satisfaction that the accused is not guilty of the offence and he will not commit any offence while on bail. 13. It is a fact that the accused was arrested on 13.01.2021, and since then he has been languishing in jail hazot for more than 4 years and the delay mostly occurred due to absence of one of the co-accused and the trial was started only after splitting up of the case of the present accused from that of the absconding accused. It also appears that trial is in progress and 8 witnesses have been examined so far. And as such, it cannot be said that there is delay in trial. 14. Considering above and also the nature and gravity of the offence allegedly committed by the present accused involving commercial quantity of Page No.# 6/6 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. MohitAgarwal, reported in (2022) 0 Supreme (SC) 619]. 15. I have also carefully gone through the decision referred by Mr. Laskar, learned counsel for the accused and I find that the aforesaid decision proceeded on its own fact which is different from the facts of the present case and as such, the same would not come in the aid of the learned counsel for the accused. 16. In the result, I find no merit in this petition and accordingly, the petition stands dismissed. 17. 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. JUDGE Comparing Assistant