Gauhati High Court
Khupkholen Singson vs The State Of Assam on 16 July, 2025
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010049712025
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Bail Appln./703/2025
KHUPKHOLEN SINGSON
S/O LATE SATLUN SINGSON
VILL-MANJA, KUKI COLONY,
P.S. MANJA
DIST. KARBI ANGLONG, ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MOTIUR RAHMAN, MR. NOOR KUTUB ALAM,MR. A S
TAPADER
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA
ORDER
Date : 16.07.2025
1. Heard Mr. M. Rahman, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr.
K. K. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. This application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the
petitioner, namely, Khupkholen Singson, who has been detained behind the bars
Page No.# 2/5
since 17.10.2022 (for last 2 year 9 months) in connection with Sessions Special
NDPS Case No. 1/2023 under Section 21(c)/29 of the NDPS Act, 1985 pending
before the Court of the learned Special Judge, Kamrup, Amingaon.
3. The gist of the accusation in this case is that on 17.10.2022, one
Tonmoy Nath had lodged an FIR before the Officer-in-charge of North Guwahati
Police Station, inter alia, alleging that an information was received through
reliable sources that a group of drug peddler were coming from Manipur
carrying some narcotic in a white colour Bolero bearing Registration No. ML-05-
M-0748. Accordingly, a naka checking was arranged at NH No. 31 near the
check post and during naka checking, the aforesaid vehicle was intercepted and
on search of the vehicle, three occupants were found in the said vehicle. During
search of the said vehicle, 765 grams of suspected heroin were recovered from
the said vehicle.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
petitioner has approached this Court seeking bail mainly on the ground that he
has been languishing behind the bars for last 2 year 9 months. However, till
date only 4 out of 8 listed prosecution witnesses have been examined and now
the trial is not progressing. He further submits that there is unlikelihood of the
trial culminating at the earliest and, therefore, considering the prolonged
incarceration of the petitioner, he may be allowed to go on bail.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that though
no specific plea is there in the bail application, however, the petitioner was also
not furnished with the written grounds of arrest at the time of his arrest on
17.10.2022. He submits that notice under Section 50 of the Cr.P.C. which was
served on the petitioner at the time of his arrest does not contain any grounds
of arrest. It only mentions the case number as well as penal provisions involved
Page No.# 3/5
in the offence. He therefore, submits that the fundamental rights of the
petitioner guaranteed under Article 21 as well as Article 22(1) of the
Constitution of India has been violated in this case and on that count, he is
entitled to get bail.
6. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has
opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner on the ground that contraband seized
in this case is of commercial quantity and, therefore, the embargo of Section 37
of the NDPS Act, 1985 is applicable to this case. He further submits that the
delay in trial is not due to any fault of prosecution side. He submits that two of
the co-accused who were earlier granted bail in this case have jumped the bail
and their attendance could not be procured during trial and, therefore, trial is
halted. He submits that if the petitioner is also granted bail, there is a likelihood
that he would also jump the bail and, therefore, he vehemently opposes the
grant of bail to the present petitioner.
7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for
both sides and have gone through the materials available before this Court
including the scanned copy of the records of Sessions Special NDPS Case No.
1/2023.
8. It appears that the charges were framed before the Trial Court against
the petitioner on 26th April, 2023. However, till date only 4 out of 8 listed
prosecution witnesses have been examined. It also appears that presently trial
is not progressing as two of the co-accused have jumped the bail. Though, the
prosecution may not be at fault for delay in the trial in the instant case,
however, the present petitioner is also not at fault for the said delay and he is
languishing behind the bar without there being any progress in the trial.
Page No.# 4/5
9. The Apex Court in “Rabi Prakash Vs. State of Orissa” reported in “2023
SCC Online SC 1109,” has observed that “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, 1985.”
10. Apart from the aforesaid judgment, in many other cases, the Apex
Court has observed that long incarceration is violative of fundamental rights
guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and if the Court comes
to a conclusion that in a particular case the incarceration is long enough, it can
come to a conclusion that the fundamental rights of the petitioner guaranteed
under Article 21 is violated and on that count, it overrides the embargo of
Section 37 of NDPS Act, 1985.
11. In the instant case also, the petitioner has been detained behind the
bars for more than 2(two) years 9(nine) months. However, the trial is not
progressing and only 4(four) out of 8(eight) prosecution witnesses have been
examined. This Court is, therefore, of the considered opinion that the petitioner
is entitled to get bail in the instant case on the ground of prolonged
incarceration.
12. As regards non-furnishing of grounds of arrest to the petitioner at the
time of his arrest, it is also good ground for a grant of bail to the petitioner.
However, this Court does not wish to discuss it in detail as the petitioner has
already been found entitled to get bail on the ground of prolonged
incarceration.
13. In view of the above, the above named petitioner is allowed to go on
Page No.# 5/5
bail Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) only with two sureties of like amount,
subject to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, Kamrup, Amingaon,
with following conditions:
i. That the petitioner shall co-operate in the trial of Sessions Special NDPS
Case No. 1/2023, which is pending in the Court of the learned Special
Judge, Kamrup, Amingaon.
ii. That the petitioner shall appear before the Trial Court as and when so
required by the Trial Court;
iii. That the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement,
threat, or promise to any person who may be acquainted with the facts of
the case, so as to dissuade such person from disclosing such facts before
the Trial Court in the trial pending against the present petitioner;
iv. That the petitioner shall provide his contact details including
photocopies of his Aadhar Card or Driving License or PAN card as well as,
mobile number, and other contact details before the Trial Court;
v. That the petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court
without prior permission of the Trial Court and when such leave is granted
by the Trial Court, the petitioner shall submit his leave address and
contact details during such leave before the Trial Court; andvi. That the petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail.
14. With the above observations, this bail application is hereby disposed of.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
[ad_1]
Source link