Tanmoy Gupta v. The State of Assam

Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010271082023

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./4377/2023 TANMOY GUPTA S/O LATE RATHINDRA KUMAR GUPTA R/O USHA BAZAR, AIRPORT ROAD, P.S. AGARTALA AIRPORT, AGARTALA, DIST. WEST TRIPURA, TRIPURA, PIN-799009 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : N CHAUDHURY Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM

B E F O R E HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND

26.02.2024

¶1Heard Mr. N. Chaudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B.B. Gogoi, learned Addl. PP, Assam.

¶2The petitioner namely, Tanmoy Gupta has filed this application under Section 439 Cr.PC with prayer for bail as he is behind bars since 28.03.2023 in connection with NDPS Case No. 82/2023 arising out of Gorchuk PS Case No. Page No.# 2/3 90/2023 registered u/s 20(c)/29 of the NDPS Act, 1985.

¶3It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that a similarly circumstanced accused has been granted bail in connection with Bail Application No. 4006/2023 vide order dated 29.01.2024. The present petitioner is the owner of the truck which was intercepted and contraband was found inside the truck. It is submitted that there is every possibility that the trial will end in acquittal and the bar u/s 37 of the NDPS Act will not be an embargo to grant bail. It is submitted that proper procedure was not complied with during seizure and sampling of the contraband and the trial will entail acquittal. It is also submitted that the petitioner is the sole bread winner of his family. The petitioner was earlier not arrested in connection with this case. The driver and the helper were arrested in connection with the case and the petitioner has been roped in as he is the owner of the truck.

¶4On the contrary the learned Addl. PP has raised serious objection against the bail petition stating that commercial quantity of ganja was recovered from the petitioner's truck. At this stage it cannot be ascertained that the trial will entail acquittal. The bar u/s 37 of the NDPS Act, acts as an embargo.

¶5I have considered the submissions at the bar with circumspection. First and foremost, the prayer of parity cannot be considered because the petitioner Dipankar Dey was neither the driver nor owner of the vehicle and he was granted bail vide order of this Court in Bail Application No. 4006/2023. Dipankar Dey was granted bail because he was the present petitioner's friend. However, the present petitioner is the owner of the truck which was carrying a commercial quantity of ganja. It is true that the petitioner has been behind bars for almost a year but at this juncture it cannot be considered that the petitioner's right to personal liberty has been curtailed. Charges have been Page No.# 3/3 framed and this case is fixed for evidence. The allegation against the petitioner reveals that the rigour of Section 37 at this stage acts as an embargo against the bail petition. At this juncture I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

¶6Petition with prayer for bail is made rejected at this juncture.

¶7Trial Court may make endeavour to expedite the trial for speedy disposal of the trial. On further procrastination of the trial, the petitioner is at liberty to apply for bail subsequently and the Court may consider the bail petition as per merits of the case. Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant