Gauhati High Court
L Sangita Rani Devi @ Sangita ... vs The State Of Assam on 26 May, 2022
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010070222022
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Bail Appln./791/2022
L SANGITA RANI DEVI @ SANGITA LAISHANGBAM
W/O P. SHYAM SINGHA
PERMANENT RESIDENT OF KWAKEITHAL, MAYAI KOIBI, P.S. LAMPHEL,
DIST. IMPHAL WEST, MANIPUR
ALTERNATE ADDRESS-
R/O 4 D, KALASNI APARTMENT, SOLAPARA ROAD, PALTAN BAZAR, P.S.
PALTAN BAZAR, KAMRUP (M), ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
TO BE REP. BY THE LEARNED PP, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. SURAJIT DAS
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT BORTHAKUR
ORDER
26.05.2022
Heard Mr. H.R.A. Choudhury, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the accused
petitioner as well as Mr. B.B. Gogoi, learned Addl. P.P., Assam for the State
Page No.# 2/4
respondent.
By this petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C., the accused-petitioner, namely L.
Sangita Rani Devi @Sangita Laishangbam has prayed for grant of bail in
connection with N.D.P.S. Case No. 100/2021(arising out of Khatkhati
P.S. Case No. 151/2021 u/s 21(c)/24/29 of the N.D.P.S. Act).
The scanned copy of the case record along with the case diary, as called
for, is placed before the Court.
The case relates to recovery and seizure of 150 polythene packets
containing 2.017 kgs. of suspected heroin from the possession of two FIR
named accused persons.
Mr. H.R.A. Choudhury, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the accused
petitioner, submits that no drug was recovered and seized from the accused
petitioner and as such, in spite of being innocent she has been undergoing
detention in judicial custody for more than a year since arrested on 16.09.2021.
Therefore, on the day of the alleged occurrence, that is, on 12.08.2021 she was
in jail. Mr. Choudhury further submits that the accused petitioner being detained
based on statements of the co-accused under Section 67 of the N.D.P.S. Act is
inadmissible and contrary to the judgment in Tofan Singh -Vs- State of Tamil
Nadu, reported in 2020 SCC OnLine SC 882 and as such, she is entitled to be
released on bail. On the other hand, Mr. Choudhury submits, the accused
petitioner denies to have made any confession that she had been involved in
illegal trade of heroin. Mr. Choudhury emphatically submits that the rigors of
Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act do not attract the accused's case.
Opposing the bail application, Mr. B.B. Gogoi, learned Addl. P.P., submits
Page No.# 3/4
that the instant case involves recovery and seizure of 2.017 kgs. of heroin,
which is more than double of commercial quantity and the police after
completion of investigation has laid a charge sheet against the accused
petitioner lady, who is a resident of Manipur State and 3(three) others, where
the learned Special Judge, Karbi Anglong at Diphu has framed charges under
Section 21(C) read with Section 29 of the N.D.P.S. Act and thereafter, only
1(one) prosecution witness out of 8 listed witnesses is examined so far.
Therefore, Mr. Gogoi submits that if the accused petitioner is released on bail at
the present stage of trial, the remaining part of the trial will certainly be
hampered.
A perusal of the case record along with the case diary, it is noticed that the
seized substance of commercial quantity of heroin, which was confirmed in the
F.S.L. report, was supplied by the agents of the present accused lady long
before the countrywide lockdown in 2020 due to outbreak of Covid 19 pandemic
and as such, the aforesaid contraband could not be handed over to her (present
accused), who, in the meantime, was arrested and detained in connection with
a number of N.D.P.S. cases registered against her and others.
There is prima facie evidence to show that the accused lady was abetting
by way of financing smuggling/importing of drugs like heroin and other
contraband substances from neighboring country through Manipur border into
India. It may be pointed out here that Section 29 of the N.D.P.S. Act provides
that the offence of 'abetment' is punishable with the punishment provided for
the offence. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that at the present stage of
trial of the case, where only one prosecution witness out of total 8(eight) listed
witnesses in the charge sheet is examined, it is felt inappropriate to record this
Page No.# 4/4
Court's view on merit of the case referring to the various judicial
pronouncements relied on by the learned Sr. Counsel for the accused petitioner.
For the above stated reasons, the bail application stands rejected.
However, the accused petitioner is given liberty to file fresh bail application,
if so advised and if such application is filed the same shall be considered and
disposed of in accordance with law by the learned Court below at an appropriate
stage of trial.
Accordingly, the bail application stands disposed of.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
