Gauhati High Court
Ranjan Kumar vs Union Of India on 24 July, 2025
Page No.# 1/6
GAHC010107822025
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Bail Appln./1645/2025
RANJAN KUMAR
S/O SIPAHI RAY
R/O RAMPUR SHAM CHAND
P.O RMAPUR,
P.S. RAGHOPUR
DIST. VAISHALI, BIHAR,
NEAR SHIV MANDIR.
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA
REP BY LEARNED STANDING COUNSEL, NCB
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R BARUAH,
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, NCB,
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA
ORDER
Date : 24.07.2025
1. Heard Mr. R. Baruah, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. P.
Upadhyay, learned counsel for the NCB.
2. This application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the
petitioner, namely, Ranjan Kumar, who has been detained behind the bars since
Page No.# 2/6
01.12.2022 (for last more than 2 years 7 months) in connection with Special
(NDPS) Case No. 20/2023 arising out of NCB Crime No. 23/2022 under Sections
8(c)/20(b)(ii)(c)/29/35/54 of the NDPS Act, 1985 pending before the Court of the
learned Special Judge, Kamrup, Amingaon.
3. The gist of accusation in this case is that the NCB on receipt of an
information through reliable sources, on 28.11.2022, that one person will be
carrying huge quantity of ganja in a truck bearing Registration No. NL-01-AB-4248,
a search operation was conducted and the aforementioned truck was intercepted
and the driver of the said truck, namely, Ganesh Kumar was arrested and during
search 195.710 kg of suspected ganja was recovered from the said truck.
4. The counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is seeking
bail in this case mainly on three counts firstly, that he has been detained behind
the bars for more than 2 years and 7 months, however, the trial has not progressed
much as out of 16 listed prosecution witnesses only 10 prosecution witnesses have
been examined and there is no hope of early culmination of the trial. He further
submits that long incarceration of the petitioner has infringed the fundamental
rights of the petitioner guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and
under such circumstances, the embargo of Section 37 of the NDPS Act gives way
to fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
5. He further submits that in the meanwhile two co-accused persons have
already been granted bail, namely, Ganesh Kumar (in Bail Application 170/2025
dated 05.05.2025) and Lakshman Ray (in Bail Application No. 1286/2025 dated
09.05.2025) by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court.
6. Thirdly, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
petitioner has been implicated in this case merely on the basis of the statement of
the co-accused recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act. Apart from the said
Page No.# 3/6
statement, there is no other material to implicate him in the said case. He submits
that the Apex Court in the case of “Toofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu” reported
in “(2021) 4 SCC 1”, has observed that the statement of co-accused is not
admissible as evidence in a case involving an offence of the NDPS Act. Under such
circumstances, he submits that petitioner is entitled to get bail in this case.
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the NCB has vehemently
opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner on the ground that the quantity of
contraband seized in this case is of commercial quantity and, therefore, embargo of
Section 37 of the NDPS Act is applicable to this case. She submits the trial has
fairly progressed and already 10 witnesses have been examined by the Trial Court
and only 6 of the prosecution witnesses remains to be examined and there is a
likelihood that the same would be expeditiously done.
8. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both
sides and have gone through the materials available on record.
9. Apparently, it appears that two of the co-accused persons have already
been granted bail by a Co-ordinate Bench, inter alia, on the grounds of prolonged
incarceration.
10. The Supreme Court of India in “Mohd Muslim @ Hussain Vs. State (NCT of
Delhi)” reported in “2023 SCC Online SC 352” has observed that “grant of bail on
the ground of undue delay in trial cannot be said to be fettered by Section 37 of
the NDPS Act, 1985″.
11. 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.”
Page No.# 4/6
12. In the case of “Ankur Chaudhary Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh ” reported in
“2024 LiveLaw (SC) 416”, the Supreme Court of India has observed as follows: –
“………..it is to observe that failure to conclude the trial within a reasonable time
resulting in prolonged incarceration militates against the precious fundamental
right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and as such,
conditional liberty overriding the statutory embargo created under Section 37(1)
(b) of the NDPS Act may, in such circumstances, be considered.”
13. In this regard the observations made by the Apex Court in the case of
“Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Another ” reported in
“AIR 2022 SC 3386” are relevant, same are quoted here in below:
“49. Sub-section (1) mandates courts to continue the proceedings on a day-to-
day basis till the completion of the evidence. Therefore, once a trial starts, it
should reach the logical end. Various directions have been issued by this Court
not to give unnecessary adjournments resulting in the witnesses being won over.
However, the noncompliance of Section 309 continues with gay abandon.
Perhaps courts alone cannot be faulted as there are multiple reasons that lead to
such adjournments. Though the section makes adjournments and that too not for
a longer time period as an exception, they become the norm. We are touching
upon this provision only to show that any delay on the part of the court or the
prosecution would certainly violate Article 21. This is more so when the accused
person is under incarceration. This provision must be applied inuring to the
benefit of the accused while considering the application for bail. Whatever may
be the nature of the offence, a prolonged trial, appeal or a revision against an
accused or a convict under custody or incarceration, would be violative of Article
21. While the courts will have to endeavour to complete at least the recording of
the evidence of the private witnesses, as indicated by this Court on quite a few
occasions, they shall make sure that the accused does not suffer for the delay
occasioned due to no fault of his own.”
14. In the instant case also, this Court is of considered opinion that the
incarceration of the petitioner for more than 2 years 7 months in this case may be
considered as long enough to infringe the fundamental rights guaranteed to him
under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and under such circumstances the
fundamental right guaranteed to the petitioner under Article 21 of the Constitution
of India override the embargo of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985. There is
Page No.# 5/6
nothing on record to indicate that the petitioner has been at fault for the long delay
in culmination of the trial and when no fault may be attributed to him for such a
long incarceration, he is entitled to get bail on the ground of prolonged
incarceration due to infringement of his fundamental rights guaranteed under
Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
15. In view of the above, the above named petitioner is allowed to go on bail
of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) 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 NDPS Case No.
20/2023, 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; and
vi. That the petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail.
Page No.# 6/6
16. This bail application is accordingly disposed of.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant