Shri Seikhongam Haokip vs The Union Of India
2025 Latest Caselaw 9020 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Shri Seikhongam Haokip vs The Union Of India on 1 December, 2025

                                                                        Page No.# 1/10

GAHC010219722025




                                                                  undefined

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

                               Case No. : Bail Appln./3206/2025

            SHRI SEIKHONGAM HAOKIP
            S/O LATE PAOJATONG HAOKIP R/O VILL. M. SONGPI, JOUJANG P.O.
            MOTBUNG P.S. GAMNON SAPARMEINA DIST. SENAPATI, MANIPUR PIN-
            795107



            VERSUS

            THE UNION OF INDIA
            REPRESENTED BY THE LEARNED S/C NCB



Advocate for the Petitioner   : DARAK ULLAH, SABRISH AHMED,MS A HUSSAIN

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, NCB,




                                   BEFORE
                   HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA

                                 JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV)


Date of Hearing : 19.11.2025
Date of Judgment: 01.12.2025


      Heard Mr. D. Ullah, learned counsel appearing for the accused-applicant. Also
heard Mr. S. C. Keyal, learned Standing Counsel, NCB.
                                                                              Page No.# 2/10

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
                                                                            Page No.# 3/10

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 his submissions, the learned counsel for the accused-applicant has
referred to the cases of Vihaan Kumar Vs. The State of Haryana, reported in (2025)
SCC OnLine SC 269, and Prabir Purkayastha Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), reported in
(2024) 8 SCC 254, relating to non-compliance of the mandatory provisions under
Section 50 of the Cr.P.C. As for his submission that long incarceration in judicial
custody pending trial is also a ground for bail, he has referred to the case of Rabi
Prakash Vs. State of Odisha, reported in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 533 as well as the case
of Dr. Sangeeta Dutta Vs. The State of Assam & Anr. (Bail Appln. No. 2805/2025,
Judgment dated 18.11.2025) of this Court.
                                                                             Page No.# 4/10

9.    On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel, NCB, submits that there is no
violation of the provisions of Section 50 of the Cr.P.C. The learned counsel further
submits that rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act will be applicable in the instant case
and long incarceration cannot be a ground for releasing the accused-applicant on bail
without the mandates of Section 37 being satisfied by the accused-applicant. In this
connection, the learned Standing Counsel has referred to the case of Union of India Vs.
Vigin K. Varghese, reported in 2025 INSC 1316 wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court has
held that in an offence under NDPS Act, wherein, the contraband materials seized is
much more than of commercial quantity, the rigour of Section 37 shall still be applicable
and only on the ground of prolonged incarceration, an accused cannot have an unfettered
right to be released on bail. The learned counsel further referred to case decided by the
Hon'ble Apex Court i.e. Union of India Vs. Namdeo Ashruba Nakade {SLP (Crl.)
No. 9792/2025}, on 07.11.2025.

10.   This Court has gone through the materials brought on record as well as perused
the Trial Court Record (TCR) meticulously.

11.   It is seen from the TCR that while arresting the accused-applicant, notice under
Section 50 of the Cr.P.C., was issued to the accused-applicant which bears the signature
of the accused-applicant. The notice also contained particulars of the case as well as the
relevant Sections under which the accused-applicant was arrested. It was also informed
to him that he has been arrested in a non-bailable case and he would be forwarded to the
Court and he can submit his petition for bail before the Court. Along with Section
50Cr.P.C. notice, a detailed Memorandum of Arrest was also issued to the accused-
applicant, which was also duly signed by the accused-applicant. It is seen from the
Memorandum of Arrest that detailed grounds of his arrest were mentioned in the
Memorandum. The Memorandum also contained a noting which reveals that intimation
of arrest of the accused-applicant was given to his wife, namely, Smt Lhingneichong
Haokip on her mobile phone i.e. 7085989203, immediately after the arrest of the
                                                                               Page No.# 5/10

accused-applicant on 02.08.2023. It is also seen from the records that an intimation
about the arrest of the accused-applicant was also sent to his wife on her address i.e.
village-Damdei Taloulong, Behind Children's Home, P.O. & P.S.-Motbung, District-
Kangpokpi, Manipur, PIN-795107 on 02.08.2023, immediately after his arrest. A similar
intimation was also sent on the very same date i.e. on 02.08.2023 to the Officer In-
charge, Police Station-Gamnom Saparmeina, Senapati, Manipur-795107 for necessary
information about the arrest of the accused-applicant.

12.   From the above materials as mentioned in the preceeding paragraph, it is seen that
the mandates of Section 50, Section 50A as well as other provisions of the Cr.P.C. have
been substantially complied with by the arresting authority at the time of the arrest of the
accused-applicant. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the contention of the
learned counsel for the accused-applicant that, there is violation of Section 50 of the
Cr.P.C. on arrest of the accused-applicant is not tenable and liable to be negated.

13.   Coming to the point of the right of bail to the accused applicant on the ground of
prolonged incarceration and the applicability of the mandates of Section 37 of the NDPS
Act, the Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of Rabi Prakash (supra) has held that a
prolonged incarceration, generally militates against the fundamental rights guaranteed
under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and in such a situation, the conditional
liberty must override the statutory embargo created under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the
NDPS Act. In the case of Rabi Prakash (supra), the facts of the case was, admittedly,
that the accused person therein was in judicial custody for more than three (3) and a half
years. There were no criminal antecedents against the accused person. Further, though
the trial had commenced in the case, only one (1) out of Nineteen (19) witnesses had
been examined by then and the Hon'ble Apex Court had come to a conclusion that the
trial will take some more time to be completed. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, therefore,
taking into account all those very materials and relevant aspects of the case, had opined
that prolonged incarceration was a ground in the peculiar facts of that case and observed
                                                                                  Page No.# 6/10

that conditional liberty must override the statutory embargo created under Section 37(1)
(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act. However, in the case of Vigin K. Varghese (supra), the
Hon'ble Apex Court, in Paragraphs 17 to 21 held as follows: -

      "17. The High Court then, on the strength of those premises, recorded a finding that
      there exist reasonable grounds to believe that the applicant is not guilty of the alleged
      offence, treating prolonged incarceration and likely delay as the justification for bail.
      Such a finding is not a casual observation. It is the statutory threshold under Section
      37(1)(b)(ii) which would disentitle the discretionary relief and grant of bail must
      necessarily rest on careful appraisal of the material available. A conclusion of this
      nature, if returned without addressing the prosecution's assertions of operative
      control and antecedent involvement, risks trenching upon appreciation of evidence
      which would be in the domain of trial court at first instance.

      18. This Court ordinarily shows deference to the discretion exercised by the High
      Court while considering the grant of bail. However, offences involving commercial
      quantity of narcotic drugs stand on a distinct statutory footing. Section 37 enacts a
      specific embargo on the grant of bail and obligates the Court to record satisfaction on
      the twin requirements noticed above, in addition to the ordinary tests under the Code
      of Criminal Procedure.

      19. In the present case, the High Court has not undertaken the analysis of those twin
      requirements with reference to the material placed by the prosecution. The orders
      dated 22.01.2025 and 12.03.2025 do not advert to the allegation regarding the
      respondent's prior involvement in a seizure of narcotic drugs and psychotropic
      substances only days prior to the seizure forming the subject matter of the present
      complaint, nor do they engage with the prosecution's assertion as to the respondent's
      role in arranging, importing, clearing and supervising the consignments. The
      omission to consider these factors bears directly upon the statutory satisfaction
      required by Section 37(1)(b).

      20. We are of the view that, in the facts of this case, it would not be appropriate for
      this Court at the threshold stage itself to render findings on whether there are or not
                                                                                Page No.# 7/10

      reasonable grounds, for believing that the respondent is not guilty, or on whether he
      is likely to commit any offence while on bail. That factual assessment, which the
      statute requires to be made and recorded with seasons, is one that the High Court
      must undertake upon a complete and fair appraisal of the rival contentions based on
      materials placed before it.

      21. In our considered view, the interests of justice would be met if the impugned
      orders are set aside and the matter is remitted to the High Court for fresh
      consideration of the respondent's prayer for hail, keeping in view the parameters of
      Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the nature and quantity of contraband alleged to have
      been seized including 50.232 kilograms of Cocaine on 06.10.2022 and 07.10.2022, the
      role attributed to the respondent in the said import, the allegation of his involvement
      in an earlier seizure of 198.1 kilograms of methamphetamine and 9.035 kilograms of
      cocaine in early October 2022, the period of custody undergone since October 2022,
      and the stage of trial before the Special Court."

14.   It may be relevant to discuss the case of Namdeo Ashruba Nakade (supra) also,
the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court shall be important in adjudication of
the instant case on hand. Paragraphs 11 to 13, being relevant, are extracted herein below:
-

"11. In the present case, this Court finds that though the Respondent-accused was in custody for one year four months and charges have not been framed, yet the allegations are serious inasmuch as not only is the recovery much in excess of the commercial quantity but the Respondent-accused allegedly got the cavities ingeniously fabricated below the trailor to conceal the contraband.

12. Prima facie this Court is of the opinion that the Respondent-accused is involved in drug trafficking in an organized manner. Consequently, no case for dispensing with mandatory requirement of Section 37 of the NDPS Act is made out in the present matter.

13. Moreover, this Court is of the view that as the accused has been charged with offences punishable with ten to twenty years rigorous imprisonment, it cannot be said Page No.# 8/10

that the Respondent has been incarcerated for an unreasonably long time."

15. From the above discussion on the judicial pronouncements of the Hon'ble Apex Court, it is clear that while deciding a bail application under the NDPS Act, wherein, the mandates of Section 37 has to be complied with, the Court has to take into consideration various aspects involved in the case, though, an accused person may have been in jail for prolonged duration. A prolonged incarceration has to be weighed vis-à-vis the other aspects like, the nature of the crime, the quantity of seized contraband materials, prior antecedents or involvement of the accused person in similar nature of crimes, possibility of influencing witnesses or the trial and also the prima facie opinion of the Court as to his probable conviction or acquittal. In this connection, the case of Mohd Muslim @ Hussain Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), reported in (2023) SCC OnLine SC 352, being relevant, is being discussed. The Hon'ble Apex Court, while considering a bail application under the NDPS Act, 1985 had observed as follows: -

"19. A plain and literal interpretation of the conditions under Section 37 (i.e., that Court should be satisfied that the accused is not guilty and would not commit any offence) would effectively exclude grant of bail altogether, resulting in punitive detention and unsanctioned preventive detention as well. Therefore, the only manner in which such special conditions as enacted under Section 37 can be considered within constitutional parameters is where the court is reasonably satisfied on a prima facie look at the material on record (whenever the bail application is made) that the accused is not guilty. Any other interpretation would result in complete denial of the bail to a person accused of offences such as those enacted under Section 37 of the NDPS Act."

From the above observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court, it is very clear that a case has to be made out by the accused for a Court to prima facie come to a conclusion whereby the mandates of Section 37 (1)(b)(ii) could be dispensed with.

16. Coming to the facts of the case in hand, it is seen from the records that contraband materials i.e. Heroin was seized from the conscious possession of the accused-applicant Page No.# 9/10

from the room where he has been staying along with another co-accused. The FSL report has already confirmed that the contraband materials seized was Heroin. It is also seen from the records that the accused-applicant has antecedents of his involvement in similar offence under the NDPS Act. One of such case is still pending before the Court of the learned Special Judge (NDPS), (FTC), Manipur, which is registered as Special Trial Case No. 03/2024, under Sections 21(b)/22(b)/60(3) of the NDPS Act. In another case, as submitted by the learned counsel for the accused-applicant, the accused-applicant has already been acquitted. Therefore, from the aforesaid facts, it is clear that there are antecedents of the accused-applicant been involved in similar kind of offences under the NDPS Act. As discussed earlier, this Court, apparently, did not find any violation of the mandates of Section 50 of the Cr.P.C, rather, while arresting the accused-applicant, the necessary mandates under Section of Cr.P.C. seemed to have been complied with.

17. Another factor which is relevant in consideration of the instant bail application is the stage of the trial. It is seen from the records that 4(four) out of 11(eleven) PWs have already been examined and the trial in the instant case, is moving on in a reasonable speed. Therefore, prima facie, it looks like that the completion of the trial will not take much time.

18. The learned Counsel for the accused applicant referred to the case of Dr. Sangeeta Dutta (Supra) wherein, this Court has taken prolonged incarceration as one amongst several grounds in granting bail to the accused person. However, that case is not relevant in the instant case, reason being, in the instant case the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act is present whereas in the case of Dr. Sangeeta Dutta (Supra), the same is absent.

19. From the above discussion and in consideration of the materials available on record, including the Trial Court Record, this Court is of prima facie opinion that the involvement and guilt of the accused-applicant cannot be ruled out at this stage. The evidence of the 4(four) PWs examined till date also point fingers to the guilt of the accused-applicant, as the contraband Heroin, much more than commercial quantity was Page No.# 10/10

seized from the conscious possession of the accused-applicant. Therefore, in the considered view of this Court, this is not a case for dispensing with the mandatory requirements of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

20. In view of the aforesaid discussions and conclusion arrived at by this Court, the instant application does not impress this Court for a bail to the accused applicant at this stage. Accordingly, the bail application is disposed of as rejected.

21. Sent back the TCR.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant