Gauhati High Court
Ranjit Kumar Singha vs The State Of Assam on 21 April, 2023
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010078392023
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Bail Appln./1357/2023
RANJIT KUMAR SINGHA
S/O SRI RANJAN SINGHA
R/O POLICHARA PART-I,
P.S. RAMNATHPUR, DIST. HAILAKANDI, ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P J SAIKIA, SR. ADV
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT BORTHAKUR
ORDER
Date : 21.04.2023
Heard Mr. P. J. Saikia, learned senior counsel appearing for the accused
petitioner as well as Mr. N. P. Goswami, learned Addl. P.P., Assam appearing for the
State respondent.
By this petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C., the accused-petitioner, namely, Ranjit
Kumar Singha, has prayed for grant of bail in connection with N.D.P.S. Case
No.55/2021 arising out of Dibrugarh PS Case No. 2036/2021 (G.R. No. 4136/2021)
registered under Section 21(c)/25/27A/29 of the N.D.P.S. Act.
Page No.# 2/5
The scanned copy of case record along with case diary, as called for, is placed
before the Court.
Mr. P. J. Saikia, learned counsel for the accused petitioner, submits that the
accused has been languishing in jail for 546 days despite being innocent as no
contraband was recovered and seized from his possession. Mr. P. J. Saikia further
submits that 08(eight) out of 13(thirteen) prosecution witnesses are examined so far
by the learned trial court, but none of them has implicated the accused with the
alleged offences. Therefore, Mr. P. J. Saikia submits that the accused undertakes to
continue to appear before the learned trial court, if he is released on bail.
Mr. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submits that the accused
petitioner and 04(four) others have been facing trial for alleged offences under
Sections 21(C)/29 of the N.D.P.S. Act and 8(eight) prosecution witnesses out of 13
(thirteen) listed witnesses are examined. Mr. Goswami, therefore, submits that in view
of bar contained in section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act, the bail application of the accused,
if accepted, may likely to hamper a smooth trial of the remaining part of trial.
The case relates to recovery and seizure of 265 grams of heroin from the
possession of the accused petitioner.
A perusal of the case record reveals that the accused has been in judicial
custody since 22.10.2021, that is, for 546 days.
Mr. P. J. Saikia, learned counsel for the accused petitioner relied on the ratio of
the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohd Muslim @
Hussain Vs State (NCT of Delhi) in Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No(s).915 of 2023 .
A perusal of the case record inter-alia, reveals that the learned trial court, after
perusal of the materials produced before it and hearing of both sides framed charges
under Sections 21(C)/28/29 of the N.D.P.S. Act against the present accused and
4(four) others vide order, dated 05.03.2022. There is a list of 13(thirteen) prosecution
witnesses in the charge-sheet laid on 17.01.2022. Thereafter, the prosecution
Page No.# 3/5
examined 08(eight) witnesses despite 24 (twenty four) dates were fixed for
examination/cross examination of the witnesses by the learned trial court. In such a
sluggish trend of production of prosecution witnesses for deposition, it can be
presumed that there is no immediate prospect of completion of trial of the case, which
is certainly a violation of the accused's right to speedy justice under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India.
On scrutiny of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, it can
prima facie be said that there is sufficient incriminating materials against the accused
subject, of course, to final outcome on completion of trial of the case. This Court is
conscious of the bar in granting bail to accused involved in trafficking of commercial
quantity of drugs provided in Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act.
In paragraphs 22 and 23 of the judgment in Mohd Muslim (supra), the Hon'ble
Supreme Court observed has herein below extracted:-
"22. The danger of unjust imprisonment, is that inmates are at risk of
"prisonisation" a term described by the Kerala High Court in A Convict Prisoner
v. State21 as" a radical transformation" whereby the prisoner:
"loses his identity. He is known by a number. He loses personal
possessions. He has no personal relationships. Psychological problems
result from loss of freedom, status, possessions, dignity any autonomy of
personal life. The inmate culture of prison turns out to be dreadful. The
prisoner becomes hostile by ordinary standards. Self-perception changes."
23. There is a further danger of the prisoner turning to crime, "as crime not
only turns admirable, but the more professional the crime, more honour is paid
to the criminal"22[ Working Papers- Group on Prisons & Borstals -1966 U.K.]
(also see Donald Clemmer's 'The Prison Community published in 1940 [Donald
Clemmer, the Prison Community (1968) Holt, Rinehart & Winston, which is
referred to in Tomasz Sobecki, 'Donald Clemmer's Concept of Prisonisation',
Page No.# 4/5
available at https://www.tkp Edu.pl/wpcontent/uploads/2020/
12/Sobecki_sklad.pdf (accessed on 23rd March, 2023)]). Incarceration has
further deleterious effects - where the accused belongs to the weakest
economic strata: immediate loss of livelihood, and in several cases, scattering of
families as well as loss of family bonds and alienation from society. The courts
therefore, have to be sensitive to these aspects (because in the event of an
acquittal, the loss to the accused is irreparable), and ensure that trials -
especially in cases, where special laws enact stringent provisions, are taken up
and concluded speedily. "
For the reasons, set forth above, this Court is of the opinion that without
passing any comment on the evidence already recorded in the case, only on
consideration of the length of detention (546 days) and applying the ratio of the
judgment rendered in Mohd Muslim (supra), it is provided that the accused petitioner,
named above, shall be released on bail of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) only
with 2 (two) sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge
(NDPS Act), Dibrugarh subject to the following conditions-
(i) That the accused petitioner shall continue to appear before the learned trial
court on all dates to be fixed from time to time till the
case is disposed of; and
(ii) That the accused petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any
inducement, threat or promise to the remaining listed prosecution witnesses
acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such
facts to the court; and
(iii) That the accused petitioner shall refrain from committing any similar
offences in future, of which he is accused or suspected of
commission; and
(iv) That out of the two sureties, one must be a government servant subject to
Page No.# 5/5
verification of the relevant documents, if deemed
necessary and after such verification, the learned court below shall
return the original documents retaining legible scanned copy thereof
on record for future reference.
Be it mentioned here that breach of any of the above conditions of bail shall
render cancellation of the bail in accordance with law.
This disposes of the bail application.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
