Sumon Roy vs The State Of Assam
2023 Latest Caselaw 402 Gua

                                                                      Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010023562023




                              THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
     (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                                Case No. : Bail Appln./410/2023

             SUMON ROY
             S/O- SUBHASH ROY, R/O- LONGAI ROAD, P.S. AND DIST. KARIMGANJ,
             ASSAM, PIN- 788710.



             VERSUS

             THE STATE OF ASSAM
             REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM



Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. S C BISWAS

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM




                                  BEFORE
                HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA

                                           ORDER

06.02.2023

1. Heard Mr. S.C. Biswas, learned counsel for the petitioner, who submits that the petitioner is an addict. He submits that the petitioner was arrested in connection with the recovery of 160 grams of Brown Sugar and 600 numbers of Yaba Tablets. Charges were framed on 10.01.2022 and that one of the Page No.# 2/3

witnesses has turned hostile.

2. The petitioner's counsel submits that due to one of the witnesses turning hostile and as the trial was not likely to be concluded in the near future, the petitioner should be granted bail.

3. Mr. P.S. Lahakar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam, on the other hand submits that no ground of bail can be made out only because one of the witnesses may have allegedly turned hostile. He submits that as the petitioner has admitted to being an addict and as there is a presumption of culpable mental state against an accused under Section 35 of the NDPS Act, 1985, the bail application should be rejected.

4. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.

5. The petitioner has been charged under Section 22(c)/29 of the NDPS Act, 1985. As the seized articles are of commercial quantity, Section 37 of the NDPS Act would be applicable and accordingly, this Court can only grant bail, if it is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner is not guilty of such offence. In the present case, the petitioner is an addict as has been admitted by the petitioner's counsel. With regard to the contention of the petitioner's counsel that trial is not likely to be concluded in near future, the judgment of the Apex Court in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav & Another, reported in (2004) 7 SCC 528 has to be considered, wherein it has been stated that bail should not be granted on the mere fact that Page No.# 3/3

the accused has undergone a certain period of incarceration or that the trial is not likely concluded in near future, when the gravity of the offence alleged is severe. In the present case as the petitioner has been charged for possession of commercial quantity of the seized articles, this Court is not inclined to grant bail at this stage.

6. The bail application is accordingly rejected.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant