Gauhati High Court
Rubel Miah vs The State Of Assam on 12 February, 2025
Page No.# 1/6
GAHC010231912024
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Bail Appln./3457/2024
RUBEL MIAH
S/O ALKACH MIAH
ADDRESS- VILL- MADHUBAN, P.S. SONAMURA,
DIST. SEPAHIJALA
TRIPURA, ASSAM- 700131
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR SISHIR DUTTA, MS K BORAH,MS S MOCHAHARI,MR. S
DUTTA
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA
ORDER
Date : 12.02.2025
1. Heard Mr. S. Dutta, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner. Also
heard Mr. B. Sharma, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
Page No.# 2/6
2. This application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 has been filed
by the petitioner namely, Rubel Miah who has been detained behind the bars
since 04.12.2022(for more than 2 years 2 months).
3. The gist of the accusation in this case is that on 04.12.2022 one
Niranjan Das had lodged an FIR before the Officer-in-Charge of Bazaricherra
Police Station, inter alia, alleging that during regular Naka checking duty at
Naka Checkpoint of Churaibari WP at N.H-8, one Tata Goods Carrier Truck
bearing registration No.TR 01C 1871 was intercepted and the petitioner was
found driving the said truck. During the search of the said truck 400 Kgs of
suspected ganja(cannabis) was recovered from the said truck.
4. On receipt of the said FIR, Bazaricherra P.S Case No. 208/2022 was
registered and investigation was initiated. Ultimately after completion of the
investigation charge-sheet was laid against 4(four) accused person including
the present petitioner under Section 20(b)(ii)(C)/29/25 of the NDPS Act, 1985.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
petitioner has been languishing behind the bars for more than 2 years 2 months
and till date even charges are not yet framed.
6. He therefore submits that on the ground of prolonged incarceration
the petitioner is entitled to get bail.
7. On the other hand the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the
State submits that the trial against the present accused petitioner could not
commence till date due to the absence of other 3 (three) co-accused persons
who are evading the process of law. He submits that next date of the case is
fixed on 15.02.2025.
8. I have considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the
Page No.# 3/6
petitioner as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and have gone
through the scanned copy of the record of Special NDPS Case No.166/2022.
9. The Supreme Court of India in "Mohd Muslim @ Hussain Vs. State
(NCT of Delhi)" reported in "2023 SCC Online SC 352" has observed that
"grant of bail on the ground of undue delay in trial cannot be said to be
fettered by Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985".
10. The Apex Court in "Rabi Prakash Vs. State of Orissa"
reported in
"2023 SCC Online SC 1109," has observed that "the prolonged
incarceration, generally militates against the most precious fundamental
right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and in such a
situation, the conditional liberty must override the statutory embargo
created under Section 37(1)(b)(ii)of the NDPS Act."
11. In the case of "Ankur Chaudhary Vs. State of Madhya =-
Pradesh" Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 4648/2024 dated 28.05.2024,
wherein the Apex Court granted bail to the petitioner in offence concerning
commercial quantity of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances on the
ground of prolonged incarceration for more than 1 year 06 months.
12. In this regard the observations made by the Apex Court in
the case of Satender Kumar Antil reported in AIR 2022 SC 3386 are
relevant, same is quoted here in below:
"49. Sub-section (1) mandates courts to continue the
proceedings on a day-to-day basis till the completion of the
Page No.# 4/6
evidence. Therefore, once a trial starts, it should reach the
logical end. Various directions have been issued by this
Court not to give unnecessary adjournments resulting in
the witnesses being won over. However, the non
compliance of Section 309 continues with gay abandon.
Perhaps courts alone cannot be faulted as there are
multiple reasons that lead to such adjournments. Though
the section makes
adjournments and that too not for a longer time period as
an exception, they become the norm. We are touching
upon this provision only to show that any delay on the part
of the court or the prosecution would certainly violate
Article 21. This is more so when the accused person is
under incarceration. This provision must be applied inuring
to the benefit of the accused while considering the
application for bail. Whatever may be the nature of the
offence, a prolonged trial, appeal or a revision against an
accused or a convict under custody or incarceration, would
be violative of Article 21. While the courts will have to
endeavour to complete at least the recording of the
evidence of the private witnesses, as indicated by this
Court on quite a few occasions, they shall make sure that
the accused does not suffer for the delay occasioned due
to no fault of his own."
13. In view of the above observation made by the Apex Court in
Page No.# 5/6
the aforesaid judgment this court is of the considered opinion that if for no fault
of the petitioner the trial is not progressing and if he is detained for long period
his fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India
are infringed and he is, therefore, entitled to get bail on the ground of
prolonged incarceration only.
14. Under above circumstances, the petitioner namely Rubel
Miah is allowed to go on bail of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees One Lakh only) with two
sureties of like amount (one of whom should be a resident of the State of
Assam) subject to the satisfaction of Learned Special Judge, Karimganj
(Sribhumi) with following conditions :-
i. That the petitioner shall cooperate in the trial of Special
(NDPS) Case No.166/2022, which is pending in the Court of learned
Special Judge, Karimganj, Assam;
ii. That the petitioner shall appear before the Trial Court as
and when so required by the Trial Court;
iii. That the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make
any inducement, threat, or promise to any person who may be
acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade such person
from disclosing such facts before the Trial Court in the trial pending
against the present petitioner;
iv. That the petitioner shall provide his contact details
including photocopies of his Aadhar Card or Driving License or PAN
card as well as mobile number, and other contact details before the
Trial Court;
v. That the petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the
Trial Court without prior permission of the Trial Court and when such
Page No.# 6/6
leave is granted by the Trial Court, the petitioner shall submit his
leave address and contact details during such leave before the Trial
Court; and
vi. That the petitioner shall not commit any similar offence
while on bail.
15. With above observations this bail application is disposed of.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
