Mamtul Ali and 3 Ors v. The State of Assam

ORDER Date : 29.05.2024

Heard Mr. M. Biswas and Ms. T. Som, learned counsels for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. R.J. Baruah, learned Additional P.P. representing the State of Assam.

¶2This is an application made under Section 439 Cr.P.C., seeking bail by the petitioners, namely, Mamtul Ali, Md. Safiqul Ali, Md. Aynul Hoque and Raju Ali, in connection with STF P.S. Case No. 17/2023, registered under Section 18(b), c (25)/29 of NDPS Act, 1985.

¶3The brief fact of the case is that on 08/11/2023, on receipt of an information regarding transporting of Narcotic substances from Manipur to lower Assam districts in a Bolero pickup vehicle bearing No. AS-01-QC-9956, a search operation was conducted. Accordingly, the vehicle was intercepted at Amingaon. On being searched, thirty six packets of opium were recovered weighing about

1.035 kgs. Accordingly, the driver of the vehicle along with other accused/petitioners were arrested and the contrabands were seized.

¶4Mr. Biswas, learned counsel for the petitioners, has only stressed his argument on the point that the accused/petitioners were arrested on 08/11/2023 and the charge-sheet was submitted on 09/05/2024, which is Page No.# 3/5 beyond the mandatory period of 180 days. Though it is reflected from the charge-sheet that the charge-sheet was ready on 03/05/2024 but the same was produced before the Special Judge on 09/05/2024 for taking cognizance. As such the petitioners are entitled for default bail. In support of his submission, learned counsel has placed reliance on the following case law – a. (2022) 0 Supreme (Gau) 710 (Samsun Noor @Samsul Noor vs. State of Assam)

¶5In response, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that though the petitioners were arrested on 08/11/2023 but charge-sheet was submitted on 03/05/2024 which is within the statutory period of 180 days.

¶6I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. I have also perused the scanned copy of the trial court record.

¶7Admittedly, as per forwarding report all the accused/petitioners were arrested on 08/11/2023 as such the mandatory period for 180 days was over on 06/05/2024. As per charge-sheet, in connection with STF P.S. case No. 17/2023, charge-sheet has been laid on 03/05/2024 u/s 18 (b) (c)/25/29/27 (A) NDPS Act. But the Sessions Judge, Kamrup (M) put his signature on the charge-sheet on 09/05/2024.

¶8It transpires that charge sheet was placed before the Sessions Judge, Kamrup (M) on 09/05/2024 which is beyond the mandatory period of 180 days.

¶9The Judgment of the Coordinate Bench cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners also held that – Page No.# 4/5 "…..charge sheet before the office of the magistrate/court would not be sufficient compliance in terms with section 173(2) of the code read with rule 38 and 69 of the Assam Police Manual Part IV and it is only when the magistrate/court competent to take cognizance of the offence puts the initials in the charge sheet as well as in the Register maintain with date and seal of the magistrate/court, it would be that date on which the charge sheet has been deemed to have been submitted to the magistrate/court."

¶10As I have already stated that though from the body of the charge-sheet, it is reflected that charge-sheet has been prepared on 03/05/2024, but the learned Sessions Judge, Kamrup (M) put his initial with date on 09/05/2024, which is beyond the mandatory period of 180 days. Hence the petitioners are entitled for default bail.

¶11Accordingly, the petitioners, named above, shall be enlarged on bail on furnishing of bail bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac) each with two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Special Judge/Sessions Judge, Kamrup(M), Guwahati, Assam.

¶12The direction for bail is further subject to the conditions that the accused-petitioners:

(a) shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of learned, Special Judge/Sessions Judge, Kamrup(M), Guwahati, Assam without prior written permission from him/her;

(b) shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as Page No.# 5/5 to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer.

¶13In terms of the above, this bail application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant

PageoNo.#o1/5 GAHC010080652024 ooooooo ooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooTHEoGAUHATIoHIGHoCOURTo (HIGHoCOURToOFoASSAM,oNAGALAND,oMIZORAMoANDoARUNACHALoPRADESH)o CaseoNo.o:oBailoAppln./1139/2024o MAMTULoALIoANDo3oORSo S/OoSAHANURoALI,o RESIDENToOFoVILLAGEoUDIANAoBALAGAON,oPSoRANGIA,oDISToKAMRUP 2:oMD.oSAFIQULoALI oS/OoMD.oISLAMoALI o RESIDENToOFoVILLAGEoISLAMPUR oRANGIA oPSoRANGIA oDISToKAMRUP 3:oMD.oAYNULoHOQUE oS/OoMR.oFAZIRoALI oRESIDENToOFoBALAoBANGAON oPSoRANGIA oDISToKAMRUP 4:oRAJUoALI oS/OoMAHTABoALI o RESIDENToOFoVILLAGEoGHOPLA oPSoKAMALPUR oDISToKAMRUo VERSUSo THEoSTATEoOFoASSAMo REPoBYoTHEoPPoASSAM Page No.# 2/5 Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. T SOM Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MALASRI NANDI