Back
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.
Dimsiannem @ Pricilla W/O Imtiwapang Imsang – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Assam – Respondent
Bail Appln.2090 of 2022
Decided on : 27-09-2022
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 439 - Grant of bail - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 22 (C)/29 – Whether the petitioner is likely to commit offence while on bail. As already observed herein above, the said aspect of the matter has to be taken into consideration having regard to the antecedent of the petitioner, her propensity and the nature and the manner in which the petitioner is alleged to have committed the offence. In the instant case, there has been nothing shown by the respondent State by placing on record any materials as regards the antecedent of the petitioner and her propensities. Para 22,23
Finding of the Court:
There are reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner may ultimately be acquitted of the offence under Section 22(C)/29 of the Act of 1985 - There are no cogent materials to indicate that in the event of enlargement of bail, the accused petitioner shall commit any offence under the Act of 1985 - Any further incarceration of the accused petitioner in anticipation of positive evidence does not appear to be justified, more so, when the charge sheet has already been submitted. In such view of the matter it calls of imposition of appropriate conditions.
Result: Petition allowed
JUDGMENT :
Heard Mr. A. Ahmed, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R. J. Baruah, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent.
2. This is an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of bail to the petitioner, namely, Smti. Dimisiannem @ Pricilla, who was arrest on 01.09.2021 and since then the petitioner has been in custody in connection with NDPS Case No.18/2022 which is pending adjudication before the Court of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge No.2, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati arising out of Bhangagarh P.S. Case No.507/2021, under Sections 22 (C)/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, the Act of 1985).
3. A perusal of the FIR enclosed in the instant application reveals that one Mr. Omar Faruk, SI UB of Police, Bhangagarh Police Station had lodged an FIR stating inter-alia that on 26.08.2021, at 4:30 PM acting on a tip off the informant including the WSI, Woman Constable, 1 Sec.Commando BN.1Sec of CRPF B128 Crime Staff of East District PAPA Staff along with DCP (east), ACP Dispur arrived at Kunjalata Bibah Bhawan near Mizoram House, G.S. Road and searched the room No.15 of Kunjalata Bibah Bhawan as authorized by ACP, Dispur and recovered one packet of yaba tablets from one Smti. Lalpian Mawii @ Khumi Khabug, 42 years resident of B-67/D, BIAL-II, DAWRPUI VENGTHAR, near YMA Hall, Aizawl and opened the packet in front of witnesses where 8500 numbers of yaba tablets weighing 950 grams including plastic packets (suspected psychotropic substance) which was duly seized on 26.08.2021 at 6:10 PM from the possession of the said Smti. Lalpian Mawii by observing all formalities as per the Act of 1985. It was mentioned that during the search, one JIO LYF mobile handset bearing Mobile No.9863724502 was also seized from her possession. Further to that, it could be learnt from the preliminary investigation that the apprehended accused lady kept the yaba tablets with her for commercial selling to other drug peddlers for her personal gain. On the basis of the said FIR being lodged, Bhangagarh P.S. Case No.507/2021 was registered under Sections 22(C)/29 of the Act of 1985. It further reveals from the case diary that on the basis of the statement made by Smti. Lalpian Mawii, the petitioner was apprehended on 01.09.2021 along with her breast feeding child from the residence of the petitioner situated at Happy Valley, Mandanrting, Block-F near Baptist Church, P.S.-Mandanrting, District-Khasi Hills, Meghalaya. Prior to arrest of the petitioner, the house of the petitioner was searched and certain articles were seized. The seized articles were duly recorded in MR No.69/2021. From a perusal of the said MR No.69/2021 it reveals that the following articles were seized:-
1. One NOKIA mobile handset, IMEI No.-35771810286299
2. One OPPO mobile handset
3. One MOTO mobile handset
4. Total Rs.35,600/-(500 X 7=3500 and 200 X 3=600)
4. Thereupon it reveals that on the same date, the petitioner was produced before the SDJM(S), No.2, Kamrup (M) along with a baby girl, namely, Imana, aged about 1 (one) year. The petitioner thereupon was remanded to the judicial custody.
5. The record further reveals that the Investigating Officer submitted the charge sheet being Charge Sheet No.85/2021 dated 21.12.2021 under Section 22 (C)/29 of the Act of 1985 against the petitioner along with another. In the said charge sheet so submitted, the contents of the FIR was reiterated and further it was mentioned that during the investigation, the place of occurrence was visited, a rough sketch map of the place of occurrence was drawn up with index, recorded the statements of the complainant and the witnesses under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. in connection with the said case. It was mentioned that the accused persons were arrested. Further to that, it was mentioned that upon interrogation of Smti. Lalpian Mawii and her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. in connection wit
Order of grant of bail to the accused on the ground that it was not merely on the basis of the confessional statement of the co-accused which was relied on to oppose the bail application.
The right to a speedy trial under Article 21 is fundamental, and undue delays in judicial proceedings can justify the granting of bail, even under stringent laws.
The court ruled that bail cannot be granted under the NDPS Act unless there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and unlikely to commit further offences.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need to satisfy the twin conditions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act before granting bail in cases involving commercial quantities of drugs. The c....
The court confirmed that under Section 37 NDPS Act, bail can only be granted if there are reasonable grounds for believing the accused is not guilty and unlikely to re-offend.
The stringent bail conditions under the NDPS Act and the need for substantial probable causes to grant bail.
The court held that bail cannot be granted under the NDPS Act without satisfying the statutory requirements of demonstrating that the accused is not guilty of the offence and is unlikely to commit fu....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the stringent parameters for granting bail under the NDPS Act, emphasizing the gravity of drug trafficking offences and the legislative intent to p....
A bail application under NDPS Act must meet stringent conditions, proving reasonable grounds for the accused's innocence and likelihood of non-reoffending, reflecting legislative intent to combat dru....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
