Page No.# 1/7 vs The Union Of India
2025 Latest Caselaw 8114 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Page No.# 1/7 vs The Union Of India on 29 October, 2025

                                                                        Page No.# 1/7

GAHC010210372025




                                                                  2025:GAU-AS:14513

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

                               Case No. : Bail Appln./3095/2025

            MALA SINGHA
            W/O- LATE SUDHIR KUMAR SINGHA, R/O- VILL- SRIBAR SARA, LEIKIA,
            BO LALANG PART II, VTC, LALANG GRANT, PO- PAILAPOOL,PS
            LAKHIPUR, DIST- CACHAR, ASSAM ,PIN- 788098



            VERSUS

            THE UNION OF INDIA
            REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR.



Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR B SINHA, MR R DAS

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, DRI,
                                                                         Page No.# 2/7


                                      BEFORE
               HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA

                                      ORDER

29-10-2025

Heard Mr. B. Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. P. S. Chakraborty, learned Standing Counsel, DRI.

2. This is an application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 praying for grant of bail to the accused/petitioner, namely, Smti. Mala Singha who has been arrested in connection with NDPS Case No.261/2024, arising out of DRI Case No.22/CL/NDPS/MORPHINE/DRI/GZU/2023-24 under Sections 8(C)/21(C)/22(C)/23(C) of the NDPS Act, 1985.

3. Scanned copy of the TCR has already been received and I have perused the same.

4. It is submitted by Mr. Sinha, learned counsel that the petitioner is innocent and she has not committed any such offence, as alleged against her.

5. He further submitted that the accused petitioner is in custody since last 600 days and hence, considering her long period of incarceration, she may be released on bail.

6. He further submitted that out of 19 numbers of prosecution witnesses, only 2 (two) witnesses were examined partly as some of the co-accused persons have not yet cross-examined those PWs. Thus, the completion of the entire trial will take considerable period and hence, considering this aspect also, the present petitioner may be released on bail.

7. He further submitted that one of the co-accused who is the prime accused Page No.# 3/7

of the case, has already been released on bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide its order dated 16.10.2025 in BA No.2572/2025 and considering the case of the present petitioner in the same footing, her bail may also be considered on the ground of parity. The accused petitioner being the permanent resident of her address locality, she will appear regularly before the learned Trial Court and will contest the case.

8. Ms. Chakraborty, learned Standing Counsel submitted in this regard that there are sufficient incriminating materials against the present petitioner and she is the prime accused of the case. The Morphine/contraband was also seized from the conscious possession of the present petitioner from her bag and thus, the case of the present petitioner is not on the same footing with the co- accused, who was already granted with bail by the Coordinate Bench of this Court.

9. She further submitted that there is every probability of hampering or tampering with the other witnesses, if she is released on bail at this stage and apart from that the chance of absconding cannot be denied at this stage.

10. Mr. Sinha, learned counsel submitted in this context that the stand of the DRI is contradictory, as in one hand it is stated that the petitioner is the main kingpin of the case and on the other hand, in the written objection filed by the DRI, it is specifically stated that the co-accused, who was already granted bail, namely, Samsur Uddin Kazi is the team leader of this case and as per the written objection, the present petitioner confessed that she knew the other co- accused person and only for monetary benefit, she was asked to carry the contraband (Morphine) and she readily accepted the offer as she was in need of money. Thus, it is not a case that the present petitioner is the prime accused of this case, rather, the other co-accused person is the kingpin of the case, who Page No.# 4/7

engaged the present petitioner for carrying the contraband (Morphine) for some monetary benefit.

11. Mr. Sinha, learned counsel further submitted that considering all these aspects of the case, especially considering her long incarceration, the bail prayer of the petitioner may be considered.

12. Heard the submissions made by the learned counsels for both sides, I have perused the scanned copy of the case record and the annexures filed along with the petition.

13. It is seen that the contraband was recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner. However, at the same time, it also cannot be denied that the petitioner is in custody since last 600 days and till date, the prosecution could not complete even 2 witnesses, out of 19 numbers of cited witnesses.

14. From the submissions made by the learned Standing Counsel, DRI it also reveals that the Presiding Officer was on order of transfer and due to that reason also there was a delay in the trial of the case and at the same time, it also cannot be denied that due to adjournment prayer made by some of the co- accused, the evidence of 2 witnesses also could not be completed till date, inspite of lapse of 600 days. So from the present status of the case it also cannot be expected for completion of the trial within a reasonable period.

15. In the case of Rabi Prakash (supra), as relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Apex Court has granted bail to the accused with a view 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 Page No.# 5/7

under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act."

16. In the case of Chitta Biswas @ Subash Vs. the State of West Bengal [Criminal Appeal No (s) 245 of 2020 (Decided on 07.02.2022)] also, the bail was granted by the Apex Court considering the long period of incarceration and also considering the fact that out of 11 numbers of witnesses, only 2 (two) witnesses were examined, who are yet to be cross examined by the accused pettioner.

17. Again, in the case of Nitish Adhikary @ Bapan (supra), considering the period of detention of 1 year 7 months, the bail was granted considering that the prosecution could examine only one witness and also considering that the case is at the preliminary stage of trial.

18. Further, in the case of Shariful Islam @ Sharif Vs. The State of West Bengal [SLP(Crl) 4173/2022 (Decided on 04.08.2022)] also, the Apex Court had considered the period of incarceration, i.e. 1 year 6 months, and the bail was granted.

19. The Apex Court in the case of Mohammed Salman Hanif Shaikh Vs. The State of Gujrat [SLP(Crl) No. 5530/2022 (Decided on 22.08.2022)] also granted bail to the accused without expressing any views on the merits of the case and only taking into consideration the period of custody.

20. In the case of Karnail Singh Vs. The State of Odisha [Criminal Appeal No. 2027/2022, arising out of SLP(Crl) No. 9067/2022 (Decided on 22.11.2022)]as well as in Dheeraj Kumar Shukla (supra) also, the Apex Court also expressed the same view and granted bail to the accused considering the period of incarceration.

Page No.# 6/7

21. Same view has been expressed by the Apex Court in the case of Anjan Nath Vs. the State of Assam [SLP (CRL) No. 9860/2023 (Decided on 17.10.2023)].

22. So, considering all above aspects of the case and also considering the observation made by the Apex Court in the various judgments, as discussed above, and further considering the other facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is of the opinion that the period of long incarceration undergone by the accused/petitioner for more than 600 days may be considered as a ground for bail with the conditional liberty considering the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and, therefore, without going into the merit of the case, I am inclined to grant bail to the present accused/petitioner.

23. Accordingly, it is provided that on furnishing a bond of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand) only with 2 (two) sureties of like amount, provided that one surety has to be a government servant, to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) No.3, Kamrup (M), Guwahati, the accused/petitioner, namely, Smti. Mala Singha, be enlarged on bail, subject to the following conditions:

(i) that the petitioner shall appear before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) No.3, Kamrup (M), Guwahati, on each and every date to be fixed by the Court;

(ii) that the petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

Page No.# 7/7

(iii) that the petitioner shall submit her Aadhar Card and PAN Card before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) No.3, Kamrup (M), Guwahati; and

(iv) that the petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) No.3, Kamrup (M), Guwahati, without prior permission.

24. In terms of above, this bail application stands disposed of.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant