Prolonged incarceration without trial infringes on constitutional rights, warranting bail despite the seriousness of the charges under the NDPS Act.

Judgment & Order :

SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, J.

Heard Shri P.P. Bora, learned counsel for the petitioner, namely, Khaiminlal Touthang, who has filed this bail application under Section 483 of the BNSS , 2023 read with Section 37 of the NDPS Act praying for bail in connection with NDPS Case No. 158/2021 (arising out of Sonapur PS Case No. 585/2021) registered under Sections 21 (c)/24/29 of the NDPS Act.

2. The petitioner was arrested on 29.08.2021.

3. At the outset, it may be noted that the prayer for bail of this petitioner was rejected by this Court on three occasions earlier vide orders dated 18.04.2022 in Bail Appln./3706/2021 and order dated 20.12.2023 in Bail Appln./4379/2023 and order dated 29.01.2025 passed in Bail Appln./3773/2024.

4. Pursuant to earlier orders passed in this case, the scanned copies of the case records have been transmitted to this Court, which have been perused.

5. Shri Bora, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the present application is mainly based on the ground that the petitioner is behind the bars since the date of his arrest i.e. 29.08.2021 and therefore, further custodial detention is not necessary. He has further submitted that out of the 9 nos. of cited PWs, till date only 3 nos. of PWs have been examined.

6. By drawing the attention of this Court to the earlier orders of rejection of the prayer for bail of the petitioner in earlier cases, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that while the prayer was rejected, there was a direction to expedite the hearing and conclude the trial. However, in spite of such directions being reiterated in the orders, there is no progress at all leading to long incarceration.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that in the meantime, 4 other accused persons have been granted bail and parity would demand a similar treatment.

8. Per contra, Shri Lahkar, learned Addl. PP, Assam strenuously opposes the prayer for grant of bail of the petitioner. He submits that on 09.03.2022 the charge sheet has been submitted and the trial has begun. It is submitted that there are 9 nos. of PWs, out of which, 3 nos. of PWs have already been examined. It is further informed that the case records would reveal that for rest of the witness, summons were being issued till to a certain date, but for some reason and the other, the rest of the witnesses have not been able to be appeared.

9. With regard to the requirement of prima facie case on the basis of the materials on record, the learned APP submits that the petitioner is a named accused who was arrested on the spot of the seizure from the vehicle (Bolero) in which he was travelling with few others. It is submitted that the contraband was concealed in the dashboard and the backlight of the vehicle in a planned manner. The report of the FSL also states that the contraband is Heroin with 78.85% purity and the quantity is also huge being about 1.3 KG. She further submits that amongst the witnesses examined, there is also a seizure witness who has deposed against the petitioner. The learned APP finally submits that in consideration of a bail application, this Court is not required to go into the merits of the allegations and the decision is to be rendered based on a prima facie determination from the materials on record.

10. The learned APP, Assam submits that apart from the fact that the rule of precedents will not have a strict application in criminal jurisprudence, the facts of the cases cited are distinguisha