Sarlong Tisso v. The State of Assam

ORDER Date : 30-01-2024

Heard Mr. M. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner Sarlong Tisso.

¶2The petitioner has filed this application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with prayer for bail as he is behind bars since Page No.# 2/4

11.04.2023 in connection with NDPS Case No. 47/2023 arising out of Howraghat Police Station Case No. 17/2023 under Sections 22(c)/29 of the NDPS Act.

¶3Heard Mr. M.P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent State of Assam.

¶4The FIR unfolds that on 11.04.2023 an information was received from a reliable source relating to transportation of large quantity of contraband to Diphu through NH-29 concealed inside a Maruti Alto vehicle. A naka checking was conducted at NH-29 and the Maruti Alto vehicle bearing registration No.As-08/4773 was detained and searched by the investigating team and two persons were found travelling inside the vehicle. One accused was the present petitioner. The accused persons hesitated to answer the questions when they were confronted by the investigating team. Finally a plastic bag was recovered from the possession of the petitioner containing:

¶1373 Nitrosum tablets.

¶2108 Nitrozepam tablets

¶3403 Sampex tablets.

¶410 syringes and a mobile phone.

¶5All those articles were seized from the possession of the petitioner and the co-accused. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is a young man and he was not aware that the contraband was kept in his car. He was enthusiastically driving the car since it was newly purchased. The petitioner is only 21 years old and he is not complicit.

¶6Per contra the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has raised objection stating that charge sheet has already been laid against the petitioner and at this juncture the petitioner cannot plead innocence. Not a single witness has been examined. The petitioner is booked under a grave offence and his bail Page No.# 3/4 application is fettered by embargo under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. This is not a case where trial has been procrastinated to enlarge an accused on bail on the ground of infringement of personal liberty. Charge sheet was submitted on

30.06.2023 and charge was framed on 02.09.2023. This case is fixed for evidence. The petitioner is not entitled to bail and the bail petition ought to be rejected as per Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

¶7The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner is a student and he is innocent. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted through his argument that even the contraband seized from the possession of the petitioner cannot be said to be of commercial quantity if the FSL report is taken into consideration.

¶8On the contrary the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the FSL report clearly reveals the weight of the composition of the banned tramadol and nitrozepam of each tablet and capsule seized in connection with this case. A careful scrutiny would reveal that the quantity is much above the commercial quantity and the petitioner is not entitled to bail.

¶9I have considered the submissions at the bar with circumspection and I have also scrutinized the FSL report along with the seizure list. At this juncture the intricacies and the technicalities of the quantity found to be present in the seized contraband by the chemical examination report is not taken into consideration. Charges have already been framed by the learned trial Curt under Section 22(c)/29 of the NDPS Act. In my opinion this is not a case where trial has been procrastinated by the Court or by the prosecution. Trial has just commenced. At this juncture it cannot be held that due to procrastination of the trial, the personal liberty of the petitioner has been curtailed. This Court cannot be oblivious of the embargo under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. There appears Page No.# 4/4 to be no justified ground to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage. Petition is rejected at this stage. Bail Application stands disposed of accordingly.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant

Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010286442023 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./4585/2023 SARLONG TISSO S/O SRI BIDYASING TISSO R/O HARI INGLENG GAON, MATIKHULA, DENGAON P.S. DOKMOKA DIST. KARBI ANGLONG, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M SAIKIA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND