Page No.# 1/6 vs Union Of India
2025 Latest Caselaw 8713 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Page No.# 1/6 vs Union Of India on 20 November, 2025

                                                                          Page No.# 1/6

GAHC010223742025




                                                                    2025:GAU-AS:15786

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

                               Case No. : Bail Appln./3266/2025
            T.G. LIANA
            SON OF GINKHUPA
            RESIDENT OF ZC-120, HIGH SCHOOL, ZOTIANG, AIZAWL MUNICIPAL
            COUNCIL,
            AIZAWL, PIN-796009, MIZORAM, INDIA.

            VERSUS

            UNION OF INDIA
            REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR, CUSTOM HQRS, PREVENTIVE UNIT,
            SHILLONG,
            THROUGH THE STANDING COUNSEL, CUSTOMS.


Advocate for the Petitioner    : MR. S D PURKAYASTHA, J P BAISHYA,MS S.S.BORA

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, CUSTOMS,

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA

DATE OF HEARING : 13.11.2025 DATE OF JUDGMENT: 20.11.2025

JUDGMENT AND ORDER(CAV)

Heard Mr. S. D. Purkayastha, learned counsel for the accused applicant and Mr. S. C. Keyal, learned Standing Counsel, Customs Department.

Page No.# 2/6

2. This is an application filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, for granting of bail to the accused applicant in connection with NDPS Case No. 01/CL/NDPS/METH/HQRS.PREV/SH/2025-26, dated 01.05.2025.

3. A complaint was filed by one Inspector, Customs Headquarters Preventive, Shillong, before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cachar, Silchar, alleging that on receipt of specific intelligence information on 01.05.2025 at around 0800 hours, a team of Customs Officers intercepted a suspected vehicle allegedly transporting contraband substances. At around 1200 hours, they intercepted a four-wheeler vehicle bearing registration No. MJ-01-J-8482 coming from Saiphai side with three occupants, namely, Sri K. Lalruatdika (driver), Sri Lalrothuama Theik (passenger) and Sri T. G. Liana (passenger/accused applicant). On enquiry, though the occupants initially denied possession of any contraband, they later admitted to concealing drugs in a secret cavity beneath the dashboard area. Due to the presence of a large crowd at the interception site, the three persons were taken to the Customs Preventive Force Office, Silchar. On intimation, the dashboard of the vehicle was opened with the help of a mechanic and six rectangular, tightly packed packets were recovered. It was alleged that the recovered packets weighed 6 (six) kgs net allegedly containing Methamphetamine tablets, and accordingly, inventory and panchnama were prepared. Thereafter, the accused persons were arrested and produced before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cachar, Silchar, on 02.05.2025.

4. The pleaded case of the accused applicant is that he was only travelling in the said vehicle and had come for some business purpose, and that he did not have any knowledge of any contraband concealed in the vehicle. It is also pleaded that the accused applicant has been languishing in jail since 02.05.2025 and that his bail application was rejected on 01.09.2025 by the learned District Page No.# 3/6

and Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Cachar, Silchar. It is further pleaded that nothing was recovered from the possession of the accused applicant and that he was merely travelling in the vehicle. In view of his long detention, i.e. more than 180 days behind bars, the accused applicant is seeking bail with the assurance that he will cooperate with the investigation of the case, in the event, he is released from jail.

5. Mr. S. D. Purkayastha, learned counsel appearing for the accused applicant, submits that the mandatory period of detention of 180 days elapsed on 27.10.2025 and since the accused applicant has already undergone the mandatory period, he should be released on bail. Learned counsel further submits that although the investigation was not completed within 180 days, the complainant, through the learned Special Public Prosecutor, prayed for extension of the period of investigation by filing an application, and the same was considered on 27.10.2025 by the learned District and Sessions Judge-cum- Special Judge, Cachar, Silchar, extending the time period for another 90 days in terms of Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act, 1985. He submits that the said order is illegal as it is violative of Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act, since the application for extension of time was filed by the learned Special Public Prosecutor mechanically, without considering all aspects of the matter. Learned counsel submits that the only ground shown in the said application was that the Investigating Officer was unable to complete the investigation due to non- receipt of certain reports from the District Transport Officer, regarding ownership and registration of the seized vehicle as well as details of some call records. He submits that the said application for extension of time was filed without detailing the report of the Investigating Officer, indicating the progress of the investigation and specific reasons for detention of the accused applicant beyond Page No.# 4/6

the mandatory period of 180 days. Therefore, he submits that since there is a statutory violation in passing the extension order dated 27.10.2025 by the learned District and Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Cachar, Silchar, the accused applicant ought to be released on bail.

6. This Court has gone through the materials brought before this Court by way of submission of the Case Diary and has also considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the accused applicant has submitted a certified copy of the application for extension of detention dated 24.10.2025, filed before the learned District and Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Cachar, Silchar, which is kept on record and marked as document 'X'. He also submitted a copy of the order dated 27.10.2025, passed by the District and Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Cachar, Silchar, which is marked as 'XI' and kept on record.

8. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the aforesaid application for extension of detention apparently does not provide any details of report submitted by the investigating officer as well as the progress report of the investigation. It was filed simply stating that in view of the non-receipt of report from District Transport Officer as well as the subscriber details and call details of the mobile phones, the extension was sought for. Therefore, he submits that there is clear violation of mandates of Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act. In support of his arguments, the learned counsel appearing for the accused applicant has referred to the following citations:

i. Hitendra Vishnu Thakur and Others Vs. State of Maharastra and Others, reported in (1994) 0 Supreme (SC) Page No.# 5/6

617 and

ii. Sanjay Kumar Kedia @ Sanjay Kedia Vs. Intellegnece Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau and Another, reported in (2009) 0 Supreme (SC) 1466.

9. Mr. S. C. Keyal, learned Standing Counsel, Customs Department, on the other hand, submits that taking into account the huge quantity of contraband that has been recovered from the conscious possession of the accused applicant, which is of commercial quantity, this Court should not grant bail to the accused applicant at this stage. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel referred to the case of Union of India Vs. Md. Nawaz Khan, reported in (2021) 10 SCC 100.

10. This Court has seen that while filing the instant bail application, it was not the pleaded case of the accused applicant that there is a violation of Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act, 1985. It is further seen that the order dated 27.10.2025, whereby the learned District and Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Cachar, Silchar has extended the time period for further 3 (three) months i.e. 90 (ninety) days in terms of Section 36 A (4) of the NDPS Act, has not been challenged or assailed in the instant application. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that since the aforesaid order has not been challenged or assailed, the legality of the aforesaid order cannot be looked into in the instant bail application.

11. In view of the aforesaid, the submission which has been made in the instant case by the accused applicant about passing of the order dated 27.10.2025, is not tenable at this stage, in the instant application. Therefore, this Court refrains from getting into the aspect of the legality or illegality of the Page No.# 6/6

aforesaid order dated 27.10.2025, passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Cachar, Silchar.

12. Taking into account of the fact that the quantity of the seized contraband is of 6 (six) Kg's, which falls in the category of commercial quantity, the rigours of Section 37 shall be applicable in the instant case. After considering the whole aspects in it's entirety, this Court is of the considered opinion that, at this stage, the bail to the accused applicant should not be granted.

13. In view of the aforesaid prima facie finding, this instant bail application is rejected at this stage.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant