Manipur High Court
Manglinhao Zou vs Narcotic Control Of Bureau on 18 January, 2022
Digitally
LHAINE signed by
LHAINEICHO
ICHON NG HAOKIP IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
G Date:
2022.01.18
HAOKIP 16:22:32
+05'30'
AT IMPHAL
B.A. No. 20 of 2021
1. Manglinhao Zou, aged about 35 years, s/o Khamlianthang Zou,
resident of Moreh Ward No. 3, Tengnoupal, Manipur Sub
Division Chandel, Manipur-795131.
2. Ms. Nongaihlian Zou, aged about 31 years, D/o Khamlianthang
Zou, resident of Moreh Ward No. 03 Moreh, PS-Moreh, Manipur-
795131
... Accused Persons/Petitioners.
(Now in judicial custody)
-Versus -
Narcotic Control of Bureau, Imphal, now at Changangei, near
Airport Road, Imphal West, Manipur.
.....Respondent.
B E F O R E
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AHANTHEM BIMOL SINGH
For the petitioners : Mr. Ch. Bimolchandra, Advocate
For the respondent : Mr. N. Brojendro, Singh, Advocate
Date of Hearing : 06.12.2021.
Date of Order : 18.01.2022
ORDER
(CAV)
Heard Mr. Ch. Bimolchandra, learned counsel appearing for
the petitioners and Mr. N. Brojendro Singh, learned counsel
appearing for the respondent.
[2] The present petition has been field by the petitioners under
section 439 of the CrPC read with section 37 of the ND&PS Act for
enlarging them on bail in connection with NCB Crime No.
B.A. No. 20 of 2021 Page 1
05/04/NCB/Imp/WY/CL/2020 dated 07.12.2020 u/s 8 (c), 22 (c), 27-A
and 29 of the ND&PS Act, 1985.
[3] The prosecution case is that on receiving reliable specific
information about the illegal production and processing of
Methamphetamines Tablets at a Makeshift Clandestine Laboratory at
Ward No. 3 near public ground, Moreh, a team of NCB Officials with
the help of personnels of 43 Bn. Assam Rifle and some Panchas
conducted a raid on 07.12.2020 at about 15.30 hours for necessary
search and seizures. In the said raid, 3 (three) persons were found
inside the suspected wooden house and during the search operation a
large quantity of Methamphetamine and other items were found and
the same were seized after following due process. Thereafter, acting
on the input provided by one of the suspected persons, the aforesaid
team of NCB along with the personnels of AR and Panchas proceeded
to a suspected location supposed to be producing and processing
Methaphetamine at a Makeshift Clandestine Laboratory located at
Moreh Ward No. 3, Tengnoupal, near Tamil Temple, Manipur and
conducted another search operation. In the said such operation
conducted inside the suspected house, the team found 3 (three)
persons along with a large quantity of Methaphetamine and other
drugs and illegal items and the same were seized after following due
process. In connection with the seizure of the said illegal drugs and
other items, the accused persons including the present petitioners
B.A. No. 20 of 2021 Page 2
were arrested and they have been placed under judicial custody till
today.
[4] The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the NCB
never collected or seized the contraband drugs from the possession or
at the instance of the petitioners and that the petitioners are merely
eye-witness of the seizure of the said seized contravene articles. It has
also been submitted that the said contraband drugs and articles were
seized from the room occupied by the other co-accused and that the
petitioners are not the owners, occupiers or possessors of the said
seized illegal psychotropic substances and they are innocent of all the
charges level against them.
[5] It has also been submitted by the learned counsel appearing for
the petitioners that the petitioners have no idea, knowledge or
information of any of the activities, viz., produce, manufacture,
possess, sell, warehouse, import, export, etc., of the said contraband
substances seized from the room of the other co-accused and that
they have nothing to do with the said co-accused and that they have
been falsely implicated in the present case without any shred of
evidence against them.
[6] It has been submitted that at the time of the alleged seizure, the
arresting authority did not comply with the mandatory provisions under
section 41, 42 and 50 of the ND&PS Act as well as the mandatory
provisions under section 100 and 165 of the CrPC and as such, the
alleged seizure and arrest were made without any authority. It has also
B.A. No. 20 of 2021 Page 3
been submitted that at the time of the search of and alleged seizure,
there were no independent witnesses and as such the petitioners are
entitled to be enlarged on bail. In support of his contentions, the
learned counsel for the petitioners had relied on the judgments of the
Apex Court in the case of (i) "Narcotic Central Bureau - Vs - Sukh
Dev Raj Sodhi" reported in 2011 AIR (SC) 1939, (ii) "Ashok Kumar
Sharma -Vs- The State of Rajasthan" reported in (2013) 2 SCC 67,
(iii) "Union of India -Vs- Jassuram" reported in 2002 Legal Eagle
(SC) 466 and (iv) "Abdul Rahman -vs- The State of Kerala"
reported in (1997) 11 SCC 93.
[7] The next ground advanced by the learned counsel appearing for
the petitioners is that the memorandum of arrest is defective and the
search-cum-seizure list was wrongly prepared by the I.O. of the case
and such documents are false and fabricated documents. It has also
been contended that the search and seizure was conducted by the
personnel of the Assam Rifles as can be seen from the newspaper
report issued on the next day of the said raid and in view of the above,
the petitioners are entitled to be enlarged on bail.
[8] Countering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioners, it has been submitted by the learned
counsel appearing fort the respondent that at the time of conducting
the search operation, the present petitioners were found along with the
other co-accused, viz., Mr. Waipho, inside his room engaging
themselves in packaging of Methaphetamine Tablets and the search
B.A. No. 20 of 2021 Page 4
party seized a large commercial quantity of 128.07 kgs of
Methaphetamine Tablets from the room where the said 3 (three)
accused persons were found. Thereafter, the NCB Officer, who seized
the contraband drugs and articles, submitted a detail seizure report to
the SP, NCB, Imphal, within 48 hours of the seizure and as such, there
is no violation of the seizure formalities as provided under section 42 of
the ND&PS Act 1985. It has also been contended by the learned
counsel that provisions of section 50 of the ND&PS Act deals with the
procedure for conduct of physical search of persons and accordingly,
provisions of section 50 are not applicable in the present case
inasmuch as, the search and seizure was made from inside a room
and not on the personal search on the body of the accused persons. In
view of the above, it has been submitted by the learned counsel that
the authorities relied on by the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners, which deals with the search and seizure under section 50
of the ND&PS Act, are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of
the present case.
[9] It has further been submitted by the learned counsel for the
respondent that the authorities complied with the provisions of section
100 and 165 of the CrPC as the search and seizure was carried out in
the presence of 2 (two) independent witness namely viz., Anilkumar
and H. Subadani Devi, who put their signature as Pancha witnesses in
the search-cum-seizure list in presence of the accused persons.
B.A. No. 20 of 2021 Page 5
[10] It has been submitted on behalf of the respondent that
mentioning of the name of Paokhothang Haokip in the 9 th line of Para 2
of the memorandum of arrest was due to slip of pen and that the name
of the petitioner No. 1 was clearly mentioned in the third line of the said
memorandum of arrest and he put his signature in the memorandum of
arrest and accordingly, such slip of pen does not affect the fact of
arrest of the petitioner in connection with the case. It has also been
submitted that the newspaper reports are hearsay in nature and the
same are not admissible as evidence and that the petitioners are
involved in commission of heinous crime of trafficking/ manufacturing/
selling of drugs and psychotropic substances and they may continue to
do so even after their release on bail, as such business are said to be
highly profitable. Accordingly, the learned counsel prayed for rejecting
the present bail application.
[11] It may be mentioned here that the present petitioners have
already approached the learned Special Court (ND&PS), Manipur, for
enlarging them on bail by filing Cril. Misc. (B) Case No. 34/2021 and
Cril. Misc. (B) Case No. 35/2021. The said 2 (two) bail applications
were rejected by the learned Special Court (ND&PS), Manipur by a
common order dated 17.04.2021 after considering the submissions
advanced on behalf of the present petitioners and by giving a reasoned
order.
[12] After hearing the rival submissions of the learned counsel
appearing for the parties and on perusal of the records of the present
B.A. No. 20 of 2021 Page 6
case as well as the aforesaid order dated 17.04.2021 passed by the
learned Special Court (ND&PS), Manipur, this Court is of the
considered view that all the grounds and submissions advanced by the
learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in the present bail
application have been considered and rejected by the learned Special
Court (ND&PS), Manipur, by giving a reasoned order. This Court
endorse and agrees with the reasons given by the learned Special
Court (ND&PS), Manipur, in its order dated 17.04.2021 passed in the
aforesaid 2 (two) bail applications filed by the present petitioners. As
no new grounds or materials have been brought before me in the
present bail application, I do not find any ground or reason for
enlarging the present petitioners on bail. Accordingly, the present bail
application is hereby rejected.
JUDGE
FR/NRF
Sapana
B.A. No. 20 of 2021 Page 7
