SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Gau) 1982

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
Anjan Moni Kalita, J.
Shri Seikhongam Haokip, S/O Late Paojatong Haokip - Petitioner
Versus
The Union Of India Represented By The Learned S/C NCB – Respondent
Bail Appln. 3206 of 2025
Decided On : 01-12-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Darak Ullah, Sabrish Ahmed, Ms A Hussain
For the Respondent: SC, NCB

Compliance with Section 50 of the Cr.P.C. and the seriousness of charges under the NDPS Act negate the automatic entitlement to bail, despite prolonged incarceration.

Headnote:(A) NDPS Act, 1985 - Sections 21

(C) and 29 - Bail application - Accused-applicant involved in possession of 0.673 kgs of Heroin, exceeding commercial quantity - Prolonged incarceration does not automatically warrant bail - Compliance with Section 50 of Cr.P.C. found adequate - Court determined that evidence incriminates accused; thus, bail rejected. (Paras 5, 12, 16, 20)

(B) Bail - Standard for granting bail under NDPS Act requires satisfaction of twin conditions under Section 37 - Courts must assess the weight of evidence alongside periods of custody - Prolonged detention must be balanced against severity of charges and evidentiary factors. (Paras 19, 20)

Facts of the case:
The accused-applicant was arrested on 01.08.2023 in connection with NDPS Case No. 16/2024, with 0.673 kgs. of Heroin recovered. The accused claims false implication and challenges the adequacy of arrest procedures under the Cr.P.C.

Findings of Court:
No violation of Section 50 of the Cr.P.C. found; prosecution presented substantial evidence against the accused, satisfying legal standards under Section 37 of NDPS Act.

Issues: The main issues were whether there was a violation of arrest procedures, the impact of prolonged incarceration on bail eligibility, and the adequacy of evidence.

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that compliance with statutory requirements was met and that the seriousness of the charges and evidence outweighed arguments for bail based merely on delay in trial.

Result: Bail application rejected.

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - Bail is not automatically granted solely due to prolonged incarceration when contraband exceeds commercial quantity; compliance with procedural safeguards is assessed alongside substantive merits (!) (!) (!) . - The court must satisfy twin conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, weighing the severity of charges, nature and quantity of seized material, and evidentiary strength (!) (!) (!) . - Compliance with Section 50 of the Cr.P.C. was found adequate, and failure to meet this standard was not established; arrest procedures were substantially followed (!) (!) . - The accused’s prior involvement in similar offenses and the stage of trial were considered relevant factors, indicating the case was still progressing toward completion (!) (!) . - The court held that the evidence indicated guilt and that dispensing with mandatory statutory conditions was not appropriate at the threshold stage (!) (!) .

What are the conditions for granting bail in cases involving contraband quantities under the NDPS Act?

How does the court assess the impact of prolonged incarceration on bail eligibility under the NDPS Act?

What evidentiary thresholds must be satisfied before considering bail for offenses involving drugs exceeding commercial quantity?


Table of Content
1. details on charges and arrest (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. rights and arguments for bail (Para 7 , 8 , 9)
3. compliance with arrest procedure (Para 10 , 11 , 12)
4. prolonged incarceration as a factor for bail (Para 13)
5. importance of evidence and previous cases (Para 14 , 15 , 19)
6. conclusion on the bail application (Para 20 , 21)

JUDGMENT :

Anjan Moni Kalita, J.

Heard Mr. D. Ullah, learned counsel appearing for the accused-applicant. Also heard Mr. S. C. Keyal, learned Standing Counsel, NCB.

2. The instant application has been filed, under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, for granting bail to the accused-applicant in connection with NDPS Case No. 16/2024, under sections 21(C)/29 of NDPS Act, in connection with NCB Guwahati Crime No. 12/2023, pending before the Court of Addl. District & Sessions Judge No. 1, Kamrup (M), Guwahati.

3. Case was registered as NCB Crime No. 07/2025, under the aforesaid sections before the aforesaid Trial Court. The accused applicant was arrested on 01.08.2023 and since then, he is in judicial custody.

4. It is seen from the records that the accused-applicant had earlier, on two occasions, approached this Court for his bail, however, on both the occasions, his prayers for bail were rejected on 14.11.2024 and 13.05.2025 respectively.

5. The matter relates to recovery of 0.673 kgs. of Heroin, which is much more than commercial quantity as prescribed in the NDPS Act, 1985, from the conscious possessions of the accused-applicant and another co-accused from the Room No. 16 of Goswami Lodge, near Down Town, Guwahati on 01.08.2023, while the accused- applicant was staying in the said Lodge along with another co-accused, namely, Bijay Gupta. Both the accused persons arrived at Guwahati from Manipur in a Maruti Gypsy bearing Registration No. MM-03-P-5705.

6. On being tested by the Drug Detection Kit from each of the 59 soap cases, from which said Heroin were recovered, those gave positive result for Heroin. Accordingly, the aforesaid contraband materials contained in 59 soap cases were seized from the conscious possession of the accused persons. The investigating authority had seized the Maruti Gypsy vehicle, Mobile phones, Driving License etc. from the accused-applicant. It is also seen that FSL report dated 06.11.2023, pertaining to the seized contraband narcotics recovered from the possession of the accused-applicant, gave positive result for Heroin. After completion of investigation, offence report was submitted before the learned Special Judge (NDPS)-cum-Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Kamrup (M), Guwahati, against the accused persons, including the accused-applicant, under Sections 20(C)/21(C)/29 of the NDPS Act on 23.02.2024. It is also seen from the records that prosecution has already examined 4(four) of it’s witnesses till date.

7. The learned counsel for the accused-applicant submits that the accused-applicant has been falsely implicated with the instant case as he was just a bearer of the consignment containing the alleged contraband materials and he was not aware of the fact that the consignment contained contraband materials. The learned counsel submits that though it has been alleged that the seizure of the contraband materials was from his conscious possession, however, from the facts as revealed, it cannot be said that the contraband materials were seized from the conscious possession of the accused- applicant. The learned counsel further submits that while arresting the accused- applicant, the arresting authority has not complied with the provisions of Section 50 of the Cr.P.C. and thereby, violated the provisions of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel further submits that the accused-applicant was arrested on 01.08.2023 and since then, for more than last 2(two) years, the accused-applicant is languishing in jail. He submits that such long incarceration during the pendency of the trial, is a settled ground for allowing him to go on bail.

8. To reinforce hi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top