Manipur High Court
Bishnu Banik Aged About 32 Years vs The Officer-In-Charge on 26 September, 2024
KHOIROM Digitally
KHOIROM
signed by
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
BIPINCHAN BIPINCHANDRA
Date: 2024.09.27
SINGH
AT IMPHAL
DRA SINGH 12:40:57 +05'30'
BAIL APPLN. No. 24 of 2023
Bishnu Banik aged about 32 years, S/o (L) Deepak Banik
of Muslim Nagar, Moreh Ward No. 5, P.O. & P.S. Moreh,
Tengnoupal District, Manipur now under Judicial Custody
at Manipur Central Jail, Sajiwa.
.... Petitioner
- Versus -
1. The Officer-in-Charge, Imphal Police Station, P.O.
Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur - 795001.
2. Mr. Subedar Asem Jiten, JC No. 626 of 2nd Mr. Govt.
of Manipur, North A.O.C. Imphal, Manipur.
.... Respondents
BEFORE
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE GOLMEI GAIPHULSHILLU
For the petitioner : Mr. Th. Jugindro, Advocate
For the respondents : Mr. Y. Ashang, Public Prosecutor
Date of hearing : 16.08.2024
Date of judgment &
order : ........................
Bail Application No. 24 of 2023 Page 1
JUDGEMENT &ORDER
(CAV)
[1] Heard Mr. Th. Jugindro, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and Mr. Y. Ashang, learned PP appearing for the respondents.
[2] The present petition has been filed with the following
prayer:
(i) To pass an order for releasing the petitioner on bail
in connection with the Spl. Trial (ND & PS) Case
No. 03 of 2023 with reference of FIR No. 231 (8)
2022 IPS P.S. U/S. 21 (C) r/w 29(2)(b) & 60(3) of
the ND & PS Act, 1985.
(ii) To pass an interim order to release the petitioner
on bail in connection with the Spl. Trial (ND & PS)
Case No. 03 of 2023 with reference of FIR 231 (8)
2022 IPS P.S. U/S. 21(C) r/w 29(2)(b) & 60(3) of
the ND & PS Act, 1985.
(iii) To pass any further order or any
appropriate/order/direction in the facts and
circumstances of the case.
[3] The brief facts of the case are that one Subedar namely,
Asem Jiten JC, No. 625 of 2nd MR lodged a complained before the
OC/Imphal Police Station whereby mentioning that on 29.08.2022 at
around 12:30 p.m. a specific information has been received from their
own source regarding consigning of suspected contraband drug at one,
Bail Application No. 24 of 2023 Page 2
Sanju Bakery at Yaiskul Janmasthan, Imphal West. Based on the
complaint, a team of 2nd Bn. MR led by Commandant Smt. Victoria
Yengkhom, MPS and Dy. CO 2nd MR, Shri N. Suraj Singh and other
personnel along with volunteers of Youth Athletic Development
Association (YADA in short) rushed to the sport after informing the SP,
Imphal West Control Mike 30 along with along with a team of Imphal
Police Station reached at around 02:30 a.m. at the spot. Upon reaching
the spot, the petitioner was found in a suspicious manner. The
petitioner was searched in presence of a Gazetted officer as desired by
the petitioner.
[4] While checking the bakery and upon questioning the
petitioner, 2 (two) packets suspected to be Crystal Methamphetamines
(also known as Ice Drug) properly wrapped with polythene in 3 (three)
layers were seized at 03:30 a.m. along with 1 (one) OPPO A15 mobile
handset bearing Airtel Mobile No. 8132980256. The seized articles were
sealed and marked as Exhibit - 'A'.
On further checking the place and questioning the
petitioner, 3 (three) more packets suspected to be Ice Drug were also
seized at 04:30 a.m. properly wrapped with polythene in 3 (three)
layers and the same was sealed and marked as Exhibit - 'B'. On
weighing the seized suspected Ice Drugs, it was found to weigh about 1
kg each packet approximately including the plastics wraps.
Bail Application No. 24 of 2023 Page 3
[5] It has been disclosed by the petitioner that the
aforementioned suspected Crystal Methamphetamines (Ice Drug)
consignment was delivered to him by his partner namely, Karim from
Imphal East to be delivered to one, Lala outside the State. Hence, the
petitioner was arrested at the spot at 04:40 a.m. along with seized
articles in connection with FIR No. 231 (8) 2022 IPS P.S. U/S 21 (C) ND
& PS Act, 1985.
In connection with the FIR aforementioned, other 2(two)
persons namely, Khulakpam Haffijuddin Shah and Karimuddin were also
arrested by the police personnel of Imphal Police Station on
01.09.2022. However, the accused persons were released on bail by the
Ld. Special Judge (ND & PS), Manipur.
[6] In connection with the FIR aforementioned, the I.O. of the
case had submitted a charge sheet after adding a new Section of
29(2)(b) & 60(3) of the ND & PS Act, 1985 before the Court of Ld.
Special Judge (ND & PS), Manipur being under charge sheet No.
15/IMPHAL-PS/2022 on 24.12.2022 against the three accused persons
namely, (i) Bishnu Banik, the present petitioner, (ii) Khulakpam
Haffijuddin Shah and (iii) Karimuddin. The Ld. Special Judge, ND & PS,
Manipur registered as Spl. Trial (ND & PS) Case No. 03 of 2023. The
present petitioner was arrayed as the accused No. 1 in the said Special
Trial Case No. 03 of 2023 and the present stage of the said trial case is
for Charge Hearing.
Bail Application No. 24 of 2023 Page 4
The petitioner filed a bail application before the Court of
Ld. Special Judge (ND & PS), Manipur under Cril Misc. (B) Case No. 58
of 2023 with the prayer for releasing on bail in various grounds.
However, the application was rejected vide order dated 25.04.2023 and
the same is annexed as Annexure - A/3. The relevant portions of the
said order are extracted hereunder:
"8. Perused materials on record including the Source Report,
documents in c/2 search and seizure of the said
suspected Crystal Methamphetamines (Ice drug),
Examination Report dated 06/12/2022, wherein the
concerned Scientific Officer (Chemistry) of the FSL,
Manipur Pangei opined about positive response to the
test for methamphetamines, statements of the witnesses,
etc., I am of the view that at this stage there exist
sufficient basis for proceeding against the accused in
respect of the alleged offences. There exists no such
facts and circumstances on record that are sufficient in
themselves to justify satisfaction that the accused is not
guilty of the alleged offences or no reasonable grounds
to believe that the accused is not guilty of the said
offences. There is also nothing to show that the accused
is not likely to commit any similar offence while on bail.
9. In the above circumstances, having regard to all the
relevant consideration including seriousness of the
alleged offences, I am not inclined to release the accused
on bail. Therefore, the application is rejected and stands
disposed of."
[7] Mr. Th. Jugindro, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner submits that the petitioner is absolutely innocent of the
charge levelled against the him in connection with the Special Trial Case
(NDPS) No. 03 of 2023 with reference to the FIR aforementioned and
he never committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution/authority
in the said trial case.
Bail Application No. 24 of 2023 Page 5
The Sanju Bakery, situated at Yaiskul Janmasthan, Imphal
West where the alleged contraband items were seized, is owned by one
namely, Sasai Ray/Sosai Roy and the said alleged seizure was not made
at the instance of the owner of the bakery. In that bakery, the
petitioner works as a labourer.
[8] The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits
that the charge sheet has been submitted after completion of the
investigation on 24.12.2022 and registered as Spl. Trial (NDPS) Case
No. 03 of 2023. However, the charge was not framed against the
petitioner till date.
Even though the charge hearing of the case was fixed on
several occasions; the case could not be proceeded due to certain
reasons. Since the charge sheet has been filed by the concerned
authority, the petitioner is no longer required for the purpose of
investigation.
[9] The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits
that on the said alleged day, there are many labourers working in the
said bakery. At the relevant point of time, the team of 2 nd MR cordoned
the bakery and hot arguments were exchanged between the police
team and labourers including the present petitioner. However, the
police team arrested the petitioner intentionally without giving any
reason by taking advantage of early morning.
Bail Application No. 24 of 2023 Page 6
The seized suspected contraband articles (Ice Drug) were
not seized from the possession of the petitioner and the same is not
related with the petitioner. In fact, the arresting authority or
complainant did not inform to his superior officer in the written form as
to search, seize and arrest the accused person in the connection with
the case.The alleged suspected Ice Drugs were seized from the bakery
namely, Sanju Bakery where, the petitioner lives along with other
labourers. It would not be sufficient to show that the petitioner was in
possession with knowledge of its existence. The prosecution failed to
take any action against the other labourers and the owner of the said
bakery.Accordingly, the present petition has been filed with the
following grounds:
(i) The petitioner was arrested on 29.08.2022 and he
was produced before the Ld. Special Judge (ND &
PS), Manipur on 08.09.2022. He was remanded to
judicial custody since 08.09.2022 by an order of the
Ld. Special Judge (ND & PS), Manipur.
(ii) After completion of the investigation, the
investigating authority submitted a charge sheet
before the Ld. Special Judge (ND & PS), Manipur.
The presence of the petitioner is no more required
for any further investigation of the case.
(iii) The said Spl. Trial Case No. 03 of 2023 is not likely
to be taken up for further hearing in near future
Bail Application No. 24 of 2023 Page 7
due to the present situation in the State of
Manipur. The said case is likely to take a longtime
and it would not be prudent to keep the petitioner
behind the bars for an unidentified period of time
at this stage. At such situation, the petitioner shall
be released on bail.
(iv) The petitioner is in judicial custody since
08.09.2022 till date. The petitioner has spent
considerable time.
(v) The petitioner is under trial prisoner, he detained in
jail to an indefinite period, Article 21 of the
Constitution of India is violated. It is submitted that
every person, detain or arrest is entitled to get
speedy trial. Moreover, the personnel liberty is
deprived when bail is refused and also deprived the
precious value of the constitutional system under
Article 21 of the Constitution.
(vi) The respondent authority has no useful purpose to
serve for detaining the petitioner in jail as the
investigating authority already submitted the
charge sheet before the Ld. Special Judge (ND &
PS), Manipur. There is no likelihood that the
petitioner will be absconding away after release on
Bail Application No. 24 of 2023 Page 8
bail. Moreover, there is no question of hamper or
tamper with any prosecution evidence or terrorize
the witness after the petitioner was released on
bail.
(vii) The charge sheet has been submitted after
completion of the investigation on 24.12.2022, then
registered as Spl. Trial (NDPS) Case No. 03 of
2023. However, the charge was not framed against
the petitioner till date and the proceedings of the
present trail case has been adjourned without
framing of charge till date.
(viii) No prima facie case against the petitioner has been
made out.
(ix) The alleged contraband items were not seized at
the instance of the owner of the Sanju bakery
namely, Sasai Rai/Sosai Roy. Therefore, there is no
reasonable ground for guilty of the petitioner. The
search and seizure are also doubtful and as such,
the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail.
(x) The petitioner is innocent and he has nothing to do
with the alleged offence in connection with the
charge sheet of Spl. Trial (NDPS) Case No. 03 of
2023.
Bail Application No. 24 of 2023 Page 9
(xi) The petitioner cooperates with the I.O. of the case
since arrest till date.
(xii) The allegations against the petitioner are that 5
(five) packets of suspected Ice Drugs were seized
from the Sanju Bakery at Yaiskul Janmasthan. Such
allegation cannot be presumed on its face value
and would always remain subject matter at Trial
Court during trial.
(xiii) The prosecution of the arresting authority did not
follow the provisions under Section 100(4) of
Cr.P.C. at the time of search. Thus, the non-
compliance of the provisions, the seizure of the
alleged contraband is illegal and the petitioner shall
be released on bail.
[10] Mr. Y. Ashang, learned PP submits that affidavit-in-
opposition has been filed. In the affidavit-in-opposition, it has been
mentioned that after arresting the accused person, petitioner herein,
along with seized items which have been handed over to the Officer-in-
Charge, Imphal Police Station for taking necessary legal action,
investigation was made and examined the complainant who fully
corroborated with the OC of the case. On investigation of the present
petitioner/accused in connection with the case and from disclosure of
the statement of the accused, 2(two) individuals namely, Karimuddin
Bail Application No. 24 of 2023 Page 10
and his brother Hafijuddin, have been arrested on 01.09.2022 and
produced before the Ld. Magistrate and remanded to police custody till
08.09.2022.
During the period of their custody remand, the 3 (three)
accused persons including the present petitioner/accused. On
interrogation of the present petitioner/accused, he admitted that the
suspected Ice Drug was seized from his possession by the police. On
further cross interrogation/examination of the three accused persons, it
has been learnt that out of 20(twenty) packets of the suspected Ice
Drug received from one unknown person 16.08.2022, 15(fifteen)
packets had been transported from Kiyamgei to Yaiskul Janmasthan to
unknown place and the remaining 5 (five) packets was concealed in the
safe custody of Karimuddin till the drugs were seized from the
possession of Bishnu Banik at Sanju Bakery, Yaiskul Janmasthan on
29.08.2022. Later, the present petitioner/accused was arrested along
with the 5 (five) packets of contraband drugs on 29.08.2022.
In the line of investigation, the present petitioner/accused
confessed that he had involved in the case and got huge amount of
money and divided in between them.
[11] In this regard, the learned PP referred to the decision of
Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision passed in Union of India V. Rattan
Mallik @ Habul reported in (2009) 2 SCC 624 and the relevant
portions are extracted hereunder:
Bail Application No. 24 of 2023 Page 11
"11. Section 37 of the NDPS Act, as substituted by Act 2 of
1989 with effect from 29-5-1989 with further amendment by
Act 9 of 2001 reads as follows:
"37. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable. (1)
Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), -
(a) every offence punishable under this Act shall
be cognizable;
(b) no person accused of an offence punishable
for offences under Section 19 or Section 24 or
Section 27-A and also for offences involving
commercial quantity shall be released on bail or
on his own bond unless -
(i) the Public Prosecutor has been given
an opportunity to oppose the
application for such release, and
(ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes
the application, the court is satisfied
that these are reasonable grounds for
believing that he is not guilty of such
offence and that he is not likely to
commit any offence while on bail.
(2) The limitations on granting of bail specified in
clause (b) of sub-section (1) are in addition to
the limitations under the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), or another law for
the time being in force on granting of bail."
12. It is plain from a bare reading of the non obstante clause in
Section d 37 of the NDPS Act and sub-section (2) thereof that
the power to grant bail to a person accused of having
committed offence under the NDPS Act is not only subject to
the limitations imposed under Section 439 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, it is also subject to the restrictions
placed by clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 37 of the
NDPS Act. Apart from giving an opportunity to the Public
Prosecutor to oppose the application for e such release, the
other twin conditions viz. (i) the satisfaction of the court that
there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is
not guilty of the alleged offence; and (ii) that he is not likely to
commit any offence while on bail, have to be satisfied. It is
manifest that the conditions are
cumulative and not alternative. The satisfaction contemplated
regarding the accused being not guilty, has to be based on
"reasonable grounds".
Bail Application No. 24 of 2023 Page 12
13. The expression "reasonable grounds" has not been defined
in the said Act but means something more than prima facie
grounds. It connotes substantial probable causes for believing
that the accused is not guilty of the offence he is charged with.
The reasonable belief contemplated in turn, points to existence
of such facts and circumstances as are sufficient in themselves
to justify satisfaction that the accused is not guilty of the
alleged offence (vide g Union of India v. Shiv Shanker Kesari²).
Thus, recording of satisfaction on both the aspects, noted
above, is sine qua non for granting of bail under the NDPS Act.
14. We may, however, hasten to add that while considering an
application for bail with reference to Section 37 of the NDPS
Act, the court is not called upon to record a finding of "not
guilty". At this stage, it is neither necessary nor desirable to
weigh the evidence meticulously to arrive at a positive a finding
as to whether or not the accused has committed offence under
the NDPS Act. What is to be seen is whether there is
reasonable ground for believing that the accused is not guilty of
the offence(s) he is charged with and further that he is not
likely to commit an offence under the said Act while on bail.
The satisfaction of the court about the existence of the said
twin conditions is for a limited purpose and is confined to the
question of releasing the accused on bail.
15. Bearing in mind the above broad principles, we may now
consider the merits of the present appeal. It is evident from the
afore-extracted paragraph that the circumstances which have
weighed with the learned Judge to conclude that it was a fit
case for grant of bail are: (1) that nothing has been found from
the possession of the respondent; (ii) he is in jail for the last
three years, and (iii) that there is no chance of his appeal being
heard within a period of seven years. In our opinion, the stated
circumstances may be relevant for grant of bail in matters
arising out of conviction under the Penal Code, 1860, etc. but
are not sufficient to satisfy the mandatory requirements as
stipulated in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 37 of the
NDPS Act.
16. Merely because, according to the learned Judge, nothing
was found d from the possession of the respondent, it could not
be said at this stage that the respondent was not guilty of the
offences for which he had been charged and convicted. We find
no substance in the argument of learned counsel for the
respondent that the observation of the learned Judge to the
effect that "nothing has been found from his possession" by
itself shows application of mind by the learned Judge
tantamounting to "satisfaction" within the meaning of the said
provision. It seems that the provisions of the NDPS Act and
Bail Application No. 24 of 2023 Page 13
more particularly Section 37 were not brought to the notice of
the learned Judge."
In Union of India V. Niyazuddin SK & Anr.reported in
(2018) 13 SCC 738, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that -
"6. Section 37 of the NDPS Act contains special provisions
with regard to grant of bail in respect of certain offences
enumerated under the said section. They are -
(1) In the case of a person accused of an offence
punishable under Section 19,
(2) Under Section 34,
(3) Under Section 27-A and
(4) Of offences involving commercial quantity."
[12] No rejoinder affidavit has been filed on the part of the
learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.
Mr. Th. Jugindro, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner referred to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in
Dipak Shubhashchandra Mehta V. Central Bureau of
Investigation & Anr. reported in (2012) 4 SCC 134. The relevant
portions of the judgment are extracted herein below:
"33. Considering the present scenario and that there is no
possibility of commencement of trial in the near future and also
of the fact that the appellant is in custody from 31-3-2010,
except the period of interim bail i.e. from 15-9-1022 to 30-11-
2011, we hold that it is not a fit case to fix any outer limit
taking note of the materials collected by the prosecution. This
Court has repeatedly held that when the undertrial prisons are
detained in jail custody to an indefinite period, Article 21 of the
Constitution is violated.
34. As posed in Sanjay Chandra case we are also asking the
same question, i.e. whether the speedy trial is possible in the
present case for the reasons mentioned above."
In Mohd Muslim @ Hussain V. State (NCT of Delhi)
[2023 LiveLaw (SC) 260], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that-
"7. Aggrieved, the present appellant approached the High
Court. The impugned judgment records that the present
accused was prima facie in regular contact with other co-
Bail Application No. 24 of 2023 Page 14
accused as indicated by the call records, and that the main
accused Virender Singh @ Beerey had transferred money from
his bank account to the appellant's bank account, several times.
One of the witnesses, during trial, had also allegedly mentioned
that Rs. 50,000 was received from the present appellant. It was
held that there was a prima facie case against him, and no
grounds to rely on the exceptions of Section 37 of the NDPS
Act; therefore, application for regular bail was refused, with a
direction to the trial court to expedite the trial and conclude it
within six months. Aggrieved, the appellant is now before this
Court, renewing his plea for grant of regular bail.
8. Ms. Tanya Agarwal, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the appellant, urged that the period of long incarceration
suffered, entitled the appellant to grant of bail. Further, 34
more witnesses were yet to be examined, with little or no
progress to the trial since the High Court's direction to expedite
the trial. It was also pointed out that main accused Virender
Singh @ Beerey and another co-accused Nepal Yadav, had both
already been granted bail by the High Court. Counsel urged bail
on the ground of parity."
16. In the most recent decision, Satender Kumar Antil V.
Central Bureau of Investigation, prolonged incarceration and
inordinate delay engaged the attention of the court, which
considered the correct approach towards bail, with respect to
several enactments, including Section 37 NDPS Act. The court
expressed the opinion that Section 436A (which requires inter
alia the accused to be enlarged on bail if the trial is not
concluded within specified periods) of the Criminal Procedure
Code, 1973, would apply:
"We do not wish to deal with individual enactments as
each special Act has got an objective behind it, followed
by the rigour imposed. The general principle governing
delay would apply to these categories also. To make it
clear, the provision contained in Section 436-A of the
Code would apply to the Special Acts also in the
absence of any specific provision. For example, the
rigour as provided under Section 37 of the NDPS Act
would not come in the way in such a case as we are
dealing with the liberty of a person. We do feel that
more the rigour, the quicker the adjudication ought to
be. After all, in these types of cases number of
witnesses would be very less and there may not be any
justification for prolonging the trial. Perhaps there is a
need to comply with the directions of this Court to
expedite the process and also a stricter compliance of
Section 309 of the Code."
Bail Application No. 24 of 2023 Page 15
In Dinesh Kumar Sinha V. State of Jharkhand
through CBI reported in (2009) 6 SCC 628, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court held that-
"3. It is submitted that theappellant has already undergone
nearly two years of his sentence and also there is no possibility
of early hearing of the appeal in the High Court, therefore, it is
requested that the appellant may be released on bail. The
learned counsel for the respondent State opposes the request
made by the learned counsel for the appellant.
4. Since the appellant has undergone almost two years of
imprisonment as awarded by the trial court and also taking into
account the fact that the appeal may not be heard in the near
future, we are of the opinion that in the peculiar facts and
circumstances of this case, the appellant applicant should be
released on bail.
5. Accordingly, we grant interim bail to the appellant,
subject to the appellant furnishing the bail bond as well as
surety to the satisfaction of the
Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi.
6. The appeal is disposed of accordingly."
In Sanjay Chandra V. Central Bureau of
Investigation reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court held that -
"42. When the undertrial prisoners are detained in jail
custody to an indefinite period, Article 21 of the Constitution is
violated. Every person, detained or arrested, is entitled to
speedy trial, the question is : whether the same is possible in
the present case."
[13] It is admitted position of fact that
(i) The petitioner/accused was arrested on
29.08.2022.
(ii) The petitioner/accused was remanded to judicial
custody on 08.09.2022 and since the said remand
the accused is incarcerated in jail till now.
Bail Application No. 24 of 2023 Page 16
(iii) The investigating authority after completion of the
investigation submitted charge sheet before the Ld.
Special Judge (ND & PS), Manipur against the
present petitioner/accused along with 2 (two)
others and registered the case as Special Trial Case
No. 3 of 2023.
(iv) The investigating authority, after checking and
upon questioning the petitioner/accused, made
seizure of the contraband seized articles weighing
about 5 kg.
[14] The petitioner filed the bail application for releasing him
on bail before the Ld. Special Judge (ND & PS), Manipur. However, the
Ld. Special Judge (ND & PS), Manipur rejected the bail application on
the ground as extracted (supra).
[15] On perusal of the materials placed before this Court
including the petition, counter affidavit, it is seen that the seized
contraband articles were part of the consignment made between the
three accused involved in the present case and some unknown persons
i.e. altogether 20 (twenty) packets; out of that, 5 (five) were seized in
connection with the present case. But, 15 (fifteen) packets had already
been transported to some other places.
[16] In the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in Union
of India vs. Rattan Mallik @ Habul reported in (2009)2 SCC 624
Bail Application No. 24 of 2023 Page 17
(supra), the relevant portion of which are extracted herein above. As
observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court at Para No. 11, 12, 13, 14 & 15
along with combined reading of Section 37 of the ND & PS Act, as
extracted above, the observation made therein in the extracted paras
and Section 37 of the ND & PS Act are applicable in the facts and
circumstances of the present case as the facts set out by the
prosecution shows reasonable ground for believing that the accused is
guilty of the offences alleged against him and also considering the fact
that the seized contraband articles are a part of the consignment made
between the three accused involved in the present case with other
persons amounting to 20 (twenty) packets. Considering the seriousness
of the case, the non-obstente clause in Section 37 of the ND & PS Act
and sub-Section 2 thereof is applicable in the present case.
[17] On the other hand, the grounds taken herein by the
petitioner could not satisfy the Court that there are reasonable grounds
for believing that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence and
that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.
[18] Considering the facts of the case as set out above, it is
seen and evident as of now that the transaction was made between the
present accused consignment of the seized contraband articles were;
out of 20 packets, 15 were delivered to the present accused earlier and
the same was transported and delivered to unknown person and the
remaining 5 packets i.e. the present seized articles were seized in the
Bail Application No. 24 of 2023 Page 18
custody of the present accused. The present seized contraband articles
i.e. 5 packets are part of the said 20 packets of consignment. On top of
that, the present bail application was filed on 11.09.2023, and at the
time of filing of the present bail application, the charge sheet was
already filed and process was issued. However, both the learned
counsels for the parties failed to update the stages of the trial till now.
[19] In the facts and circumstance of the case in hand, the
citations relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not
applicable.
[20] Taking into account the facts and circumstances as
narrated above and also taking into consideration all the discussions
made above, the present petition filed by the accused/petitioner has got
no leg to stand upon.
[21] Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed without cost,
as this Court felt that, the quicker adjudication ought to be made by the
parties as well as the Trial Court as such directed the Trial Court not to
prolong the trial and to expedite the process of the trial with strict
compliance as per the provision of law and that the trial may be
proceeded as fast as possible. Liberty is given to the petitioner to
approach this Court, if the Trial Court failed to proceed with the trial of
the case in time for bail.
JUDGE
Bipin
Bail Application No. 24 of 2023 Page 19
