[ad_1]
Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/3 vs The State Of Assam on 26 August, 2025
Author: Parthivjyoti Saikia
Bench: Parthivjyoti Saikia
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010153372025
2025:GAU-AS:11348
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Bail Appln./2279/2025
SRI RAM YADAV
SON OF LATE MUNNA LAL YADAV,
R/O HOUSE NO 13/104, NUNIHAI, KUBERPUR, P.S.ETMODDAULA, DIST.
AGRA,(UTTAR PRADESH)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY PP ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. A. MEDHI,
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA
ORDER
Date : 26.08.2025
1. Heard Ms. A. Medhi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. K. Das,
learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam.
2. This application has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, praying for grant of regular bail to the petitioner, Sri. Ram
Page No.# 2/3
Yadav, who is facing trial in NDPS Case No.137/2024, pending in the Court of the
learned Additional District & Sessions Judge No.5, Kamrup (Metro), Guwahati.
3. There are 11 prosecution witnesses in the Charge-Sheet and out of them only
one witness has been examined. The petitioner has already completed more than 1
year and 9 months in Judicial Custody.
4. Mr. Medhi, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a Judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court that was delivered in ” Satender Kumar Antil Vs. CBI
reported in (2022) 10 SCC 51″ , in this Judgment it has been held that the grant of
bail on the ground of delay in trial cannot be said to be fettered by Section 37 of the
NDPS Act, 1985 in as much as Section 436A of the CrPC, is made applicable to the
offence under the NDPS Act.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon another Judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court that was delivered in ” Hussainara Khatoon & Ors. vs.
Home Secretary, State of Bihar reported in 1980 (1) SCC 81″ , in this case, the
Apex Court has observed that the procedure prescribed by law for depriving a person
for his personal liberty cannot be regarded as reasonable, fair or just unless that
procedure ensures a speedy trial for determination of guilt of such person, no
procedure which does not ensure a reasonable quick trial can be regarded as
reasonable, fair or just and it would be foul against Article 21 of the Constitution of
India.
6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for both sides.
7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has objected to this bail application.
8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Rabi Prakash Vs. the State of Odisha
Page No.# 3/3
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 of India and in such a situation, the
conditional liberty must override the statutory embargo created under Section 37(1)
(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act.
9. Under the aforesaid circumstances, considering long incarceration of the
petitioner and also considering the fact that till now only one prosecution witness has
been examined out of 11.
10. This Court is of the opinion that the petitioner deserves to be released on bail.
11. Therefore, the bail application of the petitioner is allowed.
12. The petitioner, Ram Yadav, who is facing trial in NDPS Case No.137/2024
pending in the court of the Additional Sessions Judge No.5, Kamrup (Metro), Guwahati
shall be released on bail of Rs.1,00,000/- with a surety of like amount to the
satisfaction of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, No.5, Kamrup
(Metro), Guwahati.
13. With the aforesaid direction, the present bail application is disposed of.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
[ad_2]
Source link