Bikram Basumatary and Anr v. The State of Assam

ORDER Date : 23.10.2024

Heard Mr. S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. B. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. Page No.# 2/4

¶2By this bail application filed under section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraskha Sanhita, 2023, the accused petitioners namely, Bikram Basumatary and Rajesh Hajawari @ Rajesh Hazowari, have prayed for bail in connection with Special (Nar) Case No. 106(BGN)/2023 (arising out of Bongaigaon GRPS Case No. 43/2023) under Section 20(b)(ii)

(C)/29 of NDPS Act, pending in the court of learned Special Judge, Bongaigaon.

¶3The learned counsel for the accused/petitioners submits that the petitioners have been languishing in judicial custody for last one year five months. Out of nine witnesses, four witnesses have already been examined. As per statement of the witnesses, three persons had escaped from the spot and the present petitioners were arrested in connection with this case. The petitioners were arrested purely on suspicion. In view of the acquisition spelt out against the petitioners as well as considering the period of detention, bail may be granted to the petitioners.

¶4On the other hand, Mr. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that charge was framed on 12.12.2023. Out of nine witnesses, four witnesses have been examined and they have identified the present petitioners in the trial court. As the commercial quantity of ganja was recovered from the possession of the petitioners, Section 37 of NDPS Act is attracted herein this case. Considering the fact as well as the nature of the offence, bail may not be granted to the petitioner at this stage of trial.

¶5I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. I have also perused the scanned copy of trial court records including the evidence of the witnesses. Page No.# 3/4

¶6It appears that the petitioners were arrested on 31.05.2023. Charge was framed on 12.12.2023 and thereafter, summons were issued to the witnesses. Admittedly, commercial quantity of ganja was recovered in connection with the case. Out of nine witnesses, four witnesses have already been examined and they have identified the petitioners in the court and stated that they were coming in 15077 Down Gomtinagar Express along with commercial quantity of ganja. Apparently, there is no delay in proceeding of the case.

¶7The NDPS Act is a special Act with an inbuilt mechanism in the form of Section 37 relating to bail. The commercial quantity of contraband were recovered from the possession of the petitioners.

¶8The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chandrakeshwar Prasad Vs. State of Bihar, reported in (2016) 9 SCC 443, has laid down in clear terms that interest of the society is a relevant factor to be taken into account while considering the prayer for bail. For ready reference, the relevant paragraphs of the said case are extracted herein below: "10. This Court in Rajesh Ranjan Yadav @ Pappu Yadav v. CBI through its Director (2007) 1 SCC 70 balanced the fundamental right to individual liberty with the interest of the society in the following terms in paragraph 16 thereof: "We are of the opinion that while it is true that Article 21 is of great importance because it enshrines the fundamental right to individual liberty, but at the same time a balance has to be struck between the right to individual liberty and the interest of society. No right can be absolute, and reasonable restrictions can be placed on them. While it is true that one of the considerations in deciding whether to Page No.# 4/4 grant bail to an accused or not is whether he has been in jail for a long time, the court has also to take into consideration other facts and circumstances, such as the interest of the society."

¶9On consideration of the matter in its entirety, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the accused/petitioners, at this stage. Therefore, prayer for bail is rejected. However, trial court is directed to expedite the trial, to dispose of the matter early.

¶10In view of the above, the bail application stands disposed of.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant

Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010156192024 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2293/2024 BIKRAM BASUMATARY AND ANR S/O LT. RAJU BASUMATARY, VILL- NO. 1 SAPKHAITI, BHEREMBAPUR, P.O. AND P.S.-UDALGURI, DIST- UDALGURI, ASSAM, PIN-784509 2: RAJESH HAJAWARI @ RAJESH HAZORWARI S/O LATE BARENDRA HAJAWARI VILL- WARD NO. 5 SAPKHAITI BHEREMBAPUR P.O. AND P.S.-UDALGURI DIST- UDALGURI ASSAM PIN-78450 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S CHAUHAN, R DEB,M. BORUAH,MR N ALAM,MR. P MAZUMDER Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MALASRI NANDI