Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/7 vs The State Of Assam And 2 Ors on 17 February, 2026
Page No.# 1/7
GAHC010233742025
2026:GAU-AS:2285
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Bail Appln./3454/2025
SRI DHAN SINGH
SON OF LATE DHUPAN SINGH
PERMANENT RESIDENT OF VILL- BALIHAR, P.S. SEMERI,DIST. BHOJPUR,
BIHAR- 302118.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS.
REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM
2:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
CBI
GOVT OF INDIA
PLOT NO- 5
B
CGO
COMPLEX
LODHI ROAD NEW DELHI
3:THE CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
ACB
GUWAHATI
NH- 37
BETKUCHI
P/O- GARCHUK
GUWAHATI
ASSA
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR A H SARKAR, MR M Z RAHMAN
Page No.# 2/7
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, SC, CBI
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA
JUDGMENT & ORDER
Date of Hearing : 10.02.2026
Date of Judgment: 17.02.2026
Heard Ms. S. Sanyal, the learned Counsel appearing for the Accused
Applicant. Also heard Ms. M. Kumari, the learned Special Counsel, CBI for the
Respondents.
2. This is an application filed under section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, read with
Section 479 of BNSS, 2023, praying for granting of bail to the Accused Applicant
in connection with C.R. No. 06/1996 arising out of GR case No. 413/1994,
Tezpur P.S. Case No. 211/1994 dated 10/04/1994, corresponding to CBI Case
No. RC-6/99-SIU, XI/CBI/New Delhi dated 29/10/1999, under Section
20(b)/25/29 read with section 8 of the NDPS Act, 1985 and Section 174A of IPC
pending before the learned Special Judge, Sonitpur, Tezpur.
3. The prosecution’s case in brief is that on receipt of information from a
secret source about carrying of contraband materials in Truck No. UHZ-1728,
S.I., D.M. Brahma and S.I., T. Kalita of Tezpur Police Station were deputed to
intercept the Truck at Kalia Bhumura Bridge on 09.04.1994 at 11 AM. The
aforesaid Police Team intercepted the Truck and brought the same to Tezpur
Police Station for thorough check up. However, before the check up could be
carried out, the driver and the handyman of the Truck fled away from there with
the pretext of having tea. The truck was checked on 10.04.1994 and during
Page No.# 3/7
such checking, about one ton of coal was unloaded from the Truck. While
unloading the coal, the police found 241 packets of suspected contraband
materials wrapped with haycian cloth under the coal inside the Truck. The Truck,
Contraband materials and documents from the Truck were seized by the Police.
Thereafter, an FIR was lodged by one N.N. Buragohain, Inspector of Tezpur
Police Station and accordingly, Tezpur P.S. Case No. 211/94 dated 10.04.1994
U/S 20 NDPS Act against the driver, handyman and the owner of the Truck was
registered.
3. After investigation, the Police finally submitted Charge Sheet on
05.02.1996 against the driver and the owner of the Truck. However, on
30.09.1999, the Learned Special Judge, after perusal of the Charge Sheet,
opined that the investigation was perfunctory and could not bust the gang
involved in the drug trafficking and therefore, an order was passed for de novo
investigation and if need arises, to be investigated by the CBI. Thereafter, FIR
No. being RC-6/99-SIU, XI/CBI, New Delhi dated 29.10.1999 was registered.
After investigation by the CBI, CBI submitted Charge Sheet No 6/2000 dated
21.10.2000 under section 20(b)/25/29, read with section 8 of the NDPS Act,
1985, against the Accused Applicant, who was arrested on 27.07.2000.
4. During the Trial, charges were framed under Section 20(b)/25/29, read
with Section 8 of the NDPS Act, 1985. Trial started and the same is in evidence
stage at present.
5. The Respondent CBI has filed a Written Objection in the instant case
against the prayer of bail of the Accused Applicant.
6. Ms. S. Sanyal, the learned Counsel appearing for the Accused Applicant
submits that the Accused Applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant
Page No.# 4/7
case and the Truck wherefrom the contraband narcotics were seized does not
belong to him as the same was sold long time back. She submits that without
any substantial evidence, the Accused Applicant has been incarcerated for a
prolonged period only on suspicion. She submits that the charge in the instant
case was framed after 8 years of the inception of the case. She submits that the
original case record of the CBI was lost and at present, the Trial is being
conducted on the basis of a recreated case record. She submits that the
Accused Applicant had already spent 483 days prior to the commencement of
the Trial. She submits that only two PWs have been examined out of the Fifty
One (51) Charge-Sheeted witnesses since framing of the charge on 8.7.2002 till
20.01.2003. She submits that Trial will take long time to conclude and in view of
the aforesaid submissions, she submits that the Accused Applicant should be
enlarged on bail with conditions of bail this Court may deem fit. The learned
Counsel submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as different Hon’ble
High Courts have, in catena of cases, emphasized that inordinate delays in trial
and long incarcerations pending trial are sufficient grounds for releasing the
accused on bail. In this connection, she referred to the following cases:
(i) Anil Kumar Vs State (Del), reported in 2022(3) AICLR 559(Del);
(ii) Md. Muslim @ Hussain Vs State (NCT of Delhi), reported in AIR 2023 SC 1648;
(iii) Jassa Ram Vs State of Rajastan ( SB Crl.Misc BA No 12055/2024), decided by the
Rajasthan High Court (Jodhpur);
(iv) Reginamary Chellamani Vs State (Sptd. Customs), reported in 2016 SCC OnLine SC
151.
7. Per contra, Ms. M. Kumari, the learned Special Counsel, CBI has opposed
the prayer of the bail. She submits that the Accused Applicant along with his
family members ran a huge racket of drugs business. She submits that several
Page No.# 5/7
cases were pending against the family members of the Accused Applicant
including him. She submits that after his bail was cancelled by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, he absconded and was hiding in his native village in Bihar for
almost two decades. She submits that he was a declared Absconder by the
learned Special Judge, Sonitpur and due to his non-participation in the Trial, the
Trial could not proceed and the same is yet to be completed. She submits that
the lost original record of the case will not impact the Trial of the case as
supplementary record has already been created and the Trial is going on at this
stage. She submits that the quantity of Ganja seized was huge commercial
quantity and therefore, section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985 shall be applicable in
the case. Hence, she submits that this Court should not allow the Accused
Applicant to go on bail as the Accused Applicant is a habitual offender who has
been declared Absconder by the appropriate court. In this connection, the
learned Special Public Prosecutor has referred to the following cases:
i) State by the Inspector of Police Vs B. Ramu (Criminal Appeal No(s)……of 2024: arising
out of SLP (Crl.) No(s). 8137 of 2022), decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 12-02-
2024.
ii) State of MP Vs. Pradeep Sharma, reported in 2014(2) SCC 171.
8. This Court has perused the Case Diary and also considered the
submissions made by the counsel appearing for the respective parties.
9. It is seen that only two prosecution witnesses were examined within the
period of 08.07.2002 to 20.01.2003. The Accused Applicant was granted bail by
the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court on 29.01.2001. However, his bail was set aside
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, vide it’s order dated 13.03.2003.
10. It could be seen from two orders, i.e. 24.04.2004 and 16.04.2006
respectively passed by the Learned Special Judge, Sonitpur that the Accused
Page No.# 6/7
Applicant was declared Absconder as he was not participating in the Trial and he
could not be traced out. Warrant of Arrest issued by the Learned Special Judge,
Sonitpur could not be executed at that point of time. The Accused Applicant was
arrested on 26.09.2022 from a village in Bihar, namely Balihar in the district of
Buxar and finally produced before the Court of the learned Special Judge,
Tezpur on 28.09.2022 on the strength of transit remand order dated
26.09.2022. Since his arrest, the Accused Applicant is in Judicial Custody.
11. It is seen that on 5.7.2025, one PW was examined before the Trial Court.
The bail application of the Accused Applicant was last rejected by the Special
Judge, Sonitpur on 16.06.2025. The Accused Applicant had filed a Criminal
Revision Petition, i.e., Criminal Revision Petition No. 206 of 2023 in the Hon’ble
Gauhati High Court for setting aside of the CR Case No. 6/1996, in connection
with GR Case No. 413/1994, arising out of Tezpur PS Case No. 211/1994,
corresponding to CBI Case NO. RC-6/1999-SIU, XI-CBI/New Delhi dated
29.10.199, in alternate release on bail of the Accused Applicant. The aforesaid
Criminal Revision was dismissed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, vide it’s
order dated 07.02.2025.
12. From the aforesaid factual matrix, it is clear that the Trial got delayed due
to the non-cooperation of the Accused Applicant in the Trial and due to that, he
was declared as an Absconder and the case had to be kept filed for a long time.
The Trial could proceed only on his arrest from his native village in Bihar on
26.09.2022.
13. Admittedly, in the instant case, the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act,
1985 is applicable.
14. This Court has considered the Case Laws referred to by the respective
Page No.# 7/7
counsel for the parties.
15. Taking into account the entire facts of the case as well as the fact of
alleged inordinate delay and the conduct of the Accused Applicant being an
Absconder for more than two decades, this Court does not find any merit in the
instant bail application to dispense with the provisions of the Section 37 of the
NDPS Act, 1985. Hence, the instant Bail Application is rejected.
16. In aforesaid terms, the Bail Application is disposed of.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
