Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(Gau) 1826

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Kalyan Rai Surana, J.
Amad Uddin Tapadar - Appellant
Vs.
The State of Assam - Respondent
Bail Appln. No. 1242 of 2024
Decided On: 28-05-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : B.C. Das, Adv.
For the Respondents: PP

The court denied bail under the NDPS Act, emphasizing the necessity of reasonable grounds for believing the accused is not guilty and unlikely to commit further offenses.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 439 - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 21(c), 25, and 29 - Bail application - Petitioner in custody for 581 days, seeking default bail - Previous bail applications rejected - No contraband seized from petitioner - Court finds insufficient grounds for bail due to serious charges and ongoing investigation. (Paras 2, 3, 19)

(B) Bail - Conditions for granting bail under NDPS Act - Court must be satisfied that accused is not guilty and unlikely to commit further offenses while on bail - Petitioner failed to meet these conditions. (Paras 11, 16)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, arrested on 12.10.2022, is accused in a significant drug trafficking case involving 9.477 kgs of heroin with a street value of Rs.60-65 Crore. He has been in custody for 581 days as of 15.05.2024, with previous bail applications denied.

Findings of Court:
The court found no grounds to believe the petitioner is not guilty of the charges, emphasizing the serious nature of the offenses and the ongoing investigation.

Issues: The main issues included the petitioner’s eligibility for default bail and whether there are reasonable grounds to believe he is not guilty.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the serious nature of the charges and the ongoing investigation do not support the grant of bail, as the petitioner did not demonstrate he is unlikely to commit further offenses.

Result: Application for bail rejected.

ORDER :

Kalyan Rai Surana, J.

1. Heard Mr. B.C. Das, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. S.H. Rahman, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K.K. Das, learned Addl. P.P. for the State.

2. By this bail application filed under section 439 Cr.P.C., the petitioner, Amad Uddin Tapadar, who is in custody since his arrest on 12.10.2022 in connection with Karimganj PS Case No. 588/2022 is praying for default bail.

3. The said Karimganj PS Case No. 588/2022 is being tried before the Court of learned Special Judge, Karimganj as Special (NDPS) Case No. 155/2022 under Sections 21(c), 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985.

4. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the petitioner has spent 581 days in custody as on 15.05.2024, the date when the matter was heard.

5. In this application, the petitioner has disclosed that the following previous application for bail were rejected by this Court, viz., (i) B.A. No. 302/2023, disposed of by order dated 10.02.2023; (ii) B.A. No. 1901/2023, disposed of by order dated 14.06.2023; and (iii) B.A. No. 444/2023, disposed of by order dated 05.01.2024. It is thus projected that this is the fourth bail application of the petitioner before this Court. Point-wise discussion on plea taken by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner:

6. No chance of an early conclusion of trial is the first point urged by the learned senior counsel.

b. In respect of the plea that there is no sign of early trial, as the order-sheet of the learned Trial Court prior to 01.01.2024 was available in the record of B.A. No. 4448/2023, this Court by order dated 02.05.2024, had called for scanned copy of order-sheet after 01.01.2024. Accordingly, the learned Trial Court has sent the scanned copy of order- sheet on and from 11.01.2024. On a perusal of the same, it is seen as follows:-

i. The scanned copy of the TCR reveals that one of the co-accused was absconding and therefore, charge-sheet could not be submitted against the said co-accused. Therefore, by order dated 12.06.2023, the case was split up against the said absconding accused.

ii. The appearance of 2(two) accused was completed only on 13.10.2023. Thereafter, charge against the accused persons was framed by order dated 27.10.2023.

iii. On 11.01.2024, the PWs were absent and therefore, by order passed on 11.01.2024, the learned Trial Court had fixed the case for evidence on the following dates, viz., 05.02.24, 06.02.24, 07.02.24, 08.02.24 and 09.02.2024.

iv. On 05.02.2024, not only the PWs were absent, but adjournment petition no. 333/5 and 332/4 were filed by the learned defence counsel and accordingly, the case was adjourned.

v. On 06.02.2024, the PWs were absent and the case was adjourned.

vi. On 07.02.2024, 2 (two) PWs were present but on adjournment petition no. 369/17 filed by the learned defence counsel, the case was adjourned and case was re-fixed on 21.02.2024.

vii. On 08.02.2024, again the learned defence counsel had prayed for adjournment which was allowed and therefore, one PW who was present could not be examined.

viii. The learned Court allowed the said PW to go back and was he was exempted from appearing until summoned.

ix. On 09.02.2024, PWs were absent and summons to 2 (two) PWs were returned without proper service.

x. On 21.02.2024, 1 (one) PW was examined, cross- examined and discharged and the case was fixed for production of accused on 06.03.2024 and for evidence, the case was fixed on 18.03.2024 and 19.03.2024.

xi. On 18.03.2024, 2 (two) PWs were present, but the prosecution side had prayed for an adjournment by filing petition no. 41/1 and