[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Gauhati High Court
Pulak Jyoti Kalita Alias Janmoni vs The State Of Assam on 20 January, 2026
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010213292025
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Bail Appln./3119/2025
PULAK JYOTI KALITA ALIAS JANMONI
S/O LATE HEMO KALITA
R/O VILL- VILL- MAJPOTHORI SINGIACHUK, P.S. SADAR
DIST. NAGAON, ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR G SARMA, MR S DEKA
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA
ORDER
Date : 20-01-2026
Heard Mr. S. Deka, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B.
Sharma, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the
State respondent.
Page No.# 2/5
2. This is an application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023, with prayer for bail as the petitioner is behind bars since
19.04.2025 in connection with Spl. NDPS Case No. 165/2024 corresponding to
Nagaon P.S. Case No. 2535/2018 u/s 21(c) of NDPS Act.
3. Scanned copy of the case records has already been received. Perused the
same.
4. It is submitted by Mr. Deka, the learned counsel for the petitioner that the
petitioner is innocent and has not committed any such offence as alleged in the
FIR. He further submitted that the only allegation brought against the petitioner
is that the vehicle was recovered from his premises wherefrom the alleged
banned cough syrup/contraband were recovered by the police personnel. He
further submitted that the present accused/petitioner earlier prayed for his
anticipatory bail. But, as per direction of this Court it appears he surrendered
before the learned Trial Court below on 19.04.2025 and since then he is in
custody. The charges have already been framed and three seizure witnesses
have already been examined by the prosecution.
5. Mr. Deka further submitted that evidences of two PWs have already been
annexed by the petitioners who are the seizure witnesses. But, both the seizure
witnesses have not made any incriminating evidence against the present
petitioner rather PW-2 was declared as hostile and both the seizure witnesses
signed on a blank paper and they were not shown the seized articles.
6. Mr. Deka further submitted that the present petitioner has no criminal
antecedent and he is ready to abide by all terms and conditions, if he is allowed
to go on bail. He being the permanent resident of the addressed locality, there
is no chance of absconding, if he is enlarged on bail. Mr. Deka further submitted
Page No.# 3/5
that the mother of the present petitioner is also in bedridden condition and
there is none to look after her.
7. Mr. Sharma, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted in this
regard that out of 9 witnesses 3 seizure witnesses have been examined till date
and the other vital witnesses, the official witnesses, the Investigating Officer
(I/O) are yet to be examined by the prosecution. He further submitted that the
accused/petitioner is in custody for 281 days and hence it also cannot be stated
to be prolonged incarceration to consider the bail application of the present
petitioner.
8. Mr. Sharma further submitted that there are sufficient incriminating
materials against the present petitioner in the 161 statement recorded by the
I/O. In that context he also relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
passed in Criminal Appeal No. 36 of 2003 [Karnail Singh v. State of
Harayana] wherein it is also held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that on the
basis of the official witnesses also the order of conviction can be passed.
9. He further submitted that as the case is of commercial in nature, the rigour
of Section 37 is to be followed wherein there has to be the satisfaction of the
Court that the accused has not committed any such offence and/or there is no
possibility of committing similar kind of offence, if the accused is released on
bail. But, in the instant case from the statement made u/s 161 Cr.PC, it is seen
that there are sufficient incriminating materials against the present
accused/petitioner and thus there cannot be any reasonable ground to believe
that the accused is innocent.
10. Mr. Sharma also relied on another decision of Supreme Court passed in
Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) 9792/2025 [Union of India v.
Page No.# 4/5
Namdeo Ashruba Nakade] wherein also in para 11 of the said judgment it
has been expressed the view by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that considering the
seriousness of allegation, the one year four months of incarceration cannot be
considered to be ground for allowing the petition. Parahraphs 11, 12 and 13 of
the said judgment read as under:-
"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 that the Respondent
has been incarcerated for an unreasonably long time."
11. Mr. Sharma accordingly raised serious objection and submitted that it
cannot be a case for allowing the petitioner to go on bail at this stage.
12. After hearing the submissions made by learned counsel for both sides, I
have perused the scanned copy of the TCR and the relevant annexures filed
with the petition.
13. It is seen that as per direction of this Court the present accused/petitioner
has surrendered before the learned Special Judge on 19.04.2025 and since then
he is in custody. The charges are already framed and three seizure witnesses
have already been examined by the prosecution. From the submission made by
the learned counsel for the petitioner it is seen that the seizure witnesses which
have been examined by the prosecution, have not made any incriminating
statement against the present petitioner. But, it is seen that out of 9 listed
witnesses only 3 seizure witnesses have been examined by the prosecution and
some of the vital witnesses including the I/O are yet to be examined by the
Page No.# 5/5
prosecution. But, from perusal of the statement made by the other witnesses
u/s 161 Cr.PC it is seen that there are sufficient incriminating materials brought
against the present petitioner showing his involvement in the alleged offence
and that apart the contrabands were also recovered from the vehicle which was
parked in the premises of the present accused/petitioner. Thus, at this stage it
cannot be held that the accused/petitioner is not guilty or there is no probability
of repeating the same offence in future, if he is granted with the privilege of bail
as per requirement of Section 37 of NDPS Act. Being a case of commercial
quantity rigour of Section 37 will be attracted and here in the instant case as
discussed above there is no ground to hold that the accused is innocent and has
not committed any such offence as alleged against him. In the same time it is
also seen that within a reasonable period the learned Special Judge had already
framed the charge and examined 3 witnesses out of 9 nos. of listed witnesses.
Thus, it also cannot be held that there is long incarceration or there is inordinate
delay in the trial, violating the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, depriving
the right of the accused/petitioner.
14. In view of the above and considering the view expressed by the Hon'ble
Apex Court and the nature of allegation brought against the present petitioner, I
do not find it justified to pass any order at this stage. However, the learned
Special Judge is hereby directed to make all endeavours for conclusion of the
trial within a reasonable period of time.
15. With the above observations, the bail application is disposed of.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
