Gauhati High Court
Vikram Singh vs The Union Of India on 7 March, 2025
Page No.# 1/8
GAHC010229422024
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Bail Appln./3390/2024
VIKRAM SINGH
SON OF SHRI KIKAR SING, RESIDENT OF BABA FAEED NAGAR, SEHORA
GRAM, TEHSIL- BISHNAH, P.O.-DHARP, P.S.-GANGYAL, DIST JAMMU,
JAMMU AND KASHMIR
VERSUS
THE UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY STANDING COUNSEL, DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE
INTELLIGENCE, GUWAHATI ZONAL UNIT, GUWAHATI-05
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M HUSSAIN, MR. A Z AHMED
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, DRI,
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA
ORDER
Date : 07.03.2025
1. Heard Mr. A. Z. Ahmed, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard
Ms. M. Deka, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. S. C. Keyal,
learned standing counsel for the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence
(DRI).
Page No.# 2/8
2. This application, under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the
petitioner, namely, Vikram Singh, who has been detained behind the bars
since 08.04.2022 (for more than 2 years 6 months) in connection with
NDPS Case No. 218/2022, pending in the Court of the learned
Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Kamrup (Metro), Guwahati, under
Sections 20(b)(ii)(C)/22/29 of the NDPS Act, 1985.
3. The gist of the accusation in this case is that on 08.04.2022, one Shri
Vishal Rai, Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence,
Guwahati Zonal Unit, Guwahati, lodged a complaint under Section 8(c)/
20(b)(ii)(C)/22/29 of the NDPS Act, 1985, against the present petitioner,
inter-alia, alleging that acting on the basis of specific information received
through the reliable sources, the Officers of DRI, Guwahati Zonal Unit
intercepted a truck bearing registration No. JK-02-BL-8199, near Kanapara
flyover on 08.04.2022, at about 0200 hours. The petitioner was found
driving the said truck.
4. On search of the said truck, a total of 1218.250 kgs of suspected ganja
was recovered from the said vehicle.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner
has been detained behind the bars since more than 2 years, 6 months.
However, till date, only 2 out of 8 listed prosecution witnesses have been
examined and it is unlikely that the trial would culminate soon.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that under the
facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is entitled to get bail on
the ground of prolonged incarceration.
7. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner has
Page No.# 3/8
relied upon following rulings. In all these cases, the accused persons were
charged of offences relating to commercial quantity of contraband and
they were granted bail mainly on the ground of prolonged incarceration:
i. Khurshid Ahamad @ Wasim Ahmad Vs the State of
Bihar (SLP Criminal No. 16726/2023)(Incarceration for 1 year 10 months).
ii. Kalpesh Gulab Bhai Khojaji Vs. the State of Gujarat
(SLP Criminal No.2325/ 2023)
(Incarceration for 1 year 5 months).
iii. Jairam Vs. the State of Rajasthan (SLP Criminal No.
2479/2024)
(Incarceration for 1 year 9 months).
iv. Shariful Islam alias Sharif Vs. the State of West
Bengal (Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No. 4173/2022)
(Incarceration for 1 year 6 months).
v. Anjan Nath Vs. for the State of Assam Special Leave
to Appeal (Criminal No. 9860/2023)vi. Chitta Biswas alias Subhash Vs. the State of West
Bengal (SLP Criminal No. 8823/2019
(Incarceration for 1 year 6 months).
vii. Nitish Adhikari alias Bapan Vs. State of West Bengal
SLP Criminal No. 5769/2022
(Incarceration for 1 year 7 months).
Page No.# 4/8
viii. And a few other similar rulings.
8. On the other hand, Ms. M. Deka, learned counsel for the DRI has
vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the present petitioner
on the ground that the contraband seized in this case is of commercial
quantity and the embargo of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985 is
applicable in this case.
9. She submits that the petitioner was driving the vehicle from which the
seized contraband was recovered and in his statement, recorded under
Section 67 of the NDPS Act, 1985 he has confessed to his guilt.
10. She has submitted that in such serious offences involving commercial
quantity of contraband, the prolonged incarceration may not be a ground
for releasing the accused persons on bail. In support of her submission,
the learned counsel for the DRI has cited a ruling of the Apex Court in the
case of “Kalyan Chandra Sarkar Vs. Rajesh Ranjan alias Pappu
Yadav” reported in (2005) 2 SCC 42.
11. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for both the
sides and have gone through the materials available on records, including
the scan copy of the case record of NDPS Case No. 218/2022, which was
requisitioned from the Trial Court.
12. The case cited by the learned counsel for the DRI, namely, Kalyan
Chandra Sarkar Vs. Rajesh Ranjan alias Pappu Yadav (Supra) has
different factual matrix and therefore, distinguishable from the present
case. In that case, the accused was accused of threatening the witnesses
and that was one of the grounds why the bail granted to him was
Page No.# 5/8
cancelled. In the instant case, no such allegation is there.
13. 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″.
14. 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.”
15. 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.”
16. In this regard, the observations made by the Apex Court in the case of
“Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation &
Page No.# 6/8
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.”
17. In the instant case also, the petitioner has been detained behind the
bars for more than 2 years, 6 months and only 2 out of 8 listed
prosecution witnesses have been examined till date.
Page No.# 7/8
18. This Court is of the considered opinion that in view of the observation
made by the Apex Court in the cases cited here in above, for whatsoever
reason if inordinate delay is caused and if without any fault on the part of
the petitioner, he is kept under detention for a long period, it would
certainly infringe his fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India. Under such circumstances, his constitutional rights
guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India would outweigh
the fetters imposed under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act, 1985 and
he would be entitled to get bail on the ground of prolonged incarceration
only.
19. Under the facts and circumstances of this case, in the considered
opinion of this Court, the long incarceration of the petitioner has, in the
instant case as well, outweighed the embargo of Section 37 of the NDPS
Act, 1985. Therefore, he is entitled to get bail on the ground of the
infringement of his fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India.
20. In view of the above, the petitioner, namely, Vikram Singh, is allowed to
go on bail of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh only) with two sureties of
like amount (one of whom should be a government servant and residing
within the State of Assam) subject to the satisfaction of the learned
Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Kamrup (Metro), Guwahati with the
following conditions:
i. That the petitioner shall cooperate in the trial of NDPS Case
No. 218/2022, which is pending in the Court of the learned
Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Kamrup (Metro), Guwahati;
ii. That the petitioner shall appear before the Trial Court as
and when so required by the Trial Court;
Page No.# 8/8
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,
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;
vi. That the petitioner shall not commit any offence while on
bail;
vii. That any violation of the above conditions shall be a good
ground for the Trial Court to get the petitioner arrested and commit
him to custody.
21. With the above observation, this bail application is accordingly, disposed
of.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant