Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 964 (GAU)

Akhtar Hussain Laskar v. State of Assam

2011-12-07

UJJAL BHUYAN

body2011
1. This is an application under section 439, Cr.PC by the petitioner, Md. Akhtar Hussain Laskar @ Akhtar Uddin. A brief recital of the sequence of events at the very out set is considered necessary. The petitioner was arrested on 5.9.2009 in connection with Silchar P.S. Case No. 1708 of 2009 under section 120(B)/121/121/(A)/122, IPC read with section 22(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, ('the Act'). As per seizure list, the following items were recovered from the arrested persons : (1) 8700 Nos. of loose spasmo Proxymon tablets. (2) 76 Nos. of Recodex Syrup (100ml). (3) One laptop computer, (4) One mobile phone, and (5) One 150 cc Bazaj Pulsur bike. The petitioner had earlier moved this court for bail by filing Bail Appln. No. 4103 of 2009, which was rejected. The police investigated the case and submitted the charge sheet on 22.11.2009. The petitioner and one Azad Ali have been named as accused. According to the prosecution a prima facie case under section 22(c) of the Act has been made out against the one accused persons and 9(nine) persons have been listed as witnesses in the charge sheet. The case was thereafter registered as NDPS Case No. 12 of 2009, On 10.2.2010 the learned Special Judge, Cachar, Silchar framed charge against the two accused persons under section 22(c) of the Act. The charge framed is ass follows : "The you on or about 4.9.2009 at 2 a.m. at Rongpur under Silchar Police Station were in possession of Spasmo Proxymon (500mg) 8700 capsules and Recodex Syrup (100 mg) 75 bottles, Psychotropic substance illegally and in contravention of the provision of the N.D.P.S Act and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 22(c) of the N.D.P.S Act and within my cognizance. The accused persons pleaded no guilty and claimed to be tried. In the meanwhile, the petitioner again moved this court for bail by filing Bail Appln. No. 1645 of 2010. This court by order dated 23.4.2010 rejected the prayer for bail on the ground that the charge sheet had already been filed. However, liberty was granted to the petitioner to move the learned trial court for bail. Accordingly, the petitioner filed a petition for bail before the learned trial court which was, however, rejected on 11.5.2010 considering the provisions laid down on section 37 of the Act. However, liberty was granted to the petitioner to move the learned trial court for bail. Accordingly, the petitioner filed a petition for bail before the learned trial court which was, however, rejected on 11.5.2010 considering the provisions laid down on section 37 of the Act. On 15.7.2010 2(two) prosecution witnesses were examined, cross-examined and discharged. In the meanwhile the petitioner again moved this court in Crl. Pet. No. 244 of 2010. This court by order dated 19.7.2010 disposed of the said petition by directing the learned trial court to expedite the trial and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible. After about, 5 months, another prosecution witness was examined on 2.2.2001. Since then no other witness has been examined and the trial appears to have come to a standstill thereafter. At this stage a bail petition was moved before the learned trial court, which by the order dated 24.6.2011 rejected the same with the observation that the case will be disposed of expeditiously. Thereafter 9(nine) dates were fixed but not a single witness has been examined. It is under such circumstances that the present petition for bail was filed before this court on 20.9.2011. This court by order dated 23.9.2011 while issuing notice to the State, directed production of the case records. In terms of the said order, the entire case record of NDPS Case No. 12 of 2009 pending in the court of learned Special Judge, Cachar, Silchar has been produced. I have heard Mr. S.C. Biswas, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. B. Gogoi, learned Addl. P.P, Assam. I have also perused the case record. The petitioner is in custody since 5.9.2009, i.e., for more than 27 months now. As noticed above, though the trial has commenced it is proceeding at a snails pace. Though the charge was framed as for back as on 10.2.2010, evidence of only 2(two) prosecution witness have been taken so far. After 2.2.2011 no other witnesses have been examined and the trial seems to have come to a standstill, despite observation by this court as well as by the learned trial court itself for expeditious conclusion of the trial. The same appears to be nowhere in sight. It is true that the provision of the Act are extremely stringent and the courts should be circumspect while entertaining prayers for bail. The same appears to be nowhere in sight. It is true that the provision of the Act are extremely stringent and the courts should be circumspect while entertaining prayers for bail. But at the same time responsibility is cat on the prosecution to conduct the trial with promptitude so that the trial can be concluded within a reasonable period. But the same appears to be missing in this case. From the sequence of events as narrated above and from a perusal for the order sheet, it is evident that the prosecution has been quite callous and its approach ackadaisical. Every accused/under-trial is entitled to a fair and a speedy trial. It is a constitutional mandate. In such a situation, the court has to strike a balance. In the present case, the petitioner has been charged under section 22(C) of the Act and not under section 19,24 or 27Aof the Act. Therefore, the limitation prescribed in section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the Act would not be applicable in all its force. Two persons claimed to be local persons and relatives of the petitioner, namely, Nurul Haque Laskar and Uddin Laskasr have come forward and deposed on oath that they would stand as surety for the petitioner. Therefor., considering the matter in its entirety and in the interest of justice, this petition is allowed. It is hereby ordered that the petitioner above named shall be enlarged on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 25,000 with two local sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned. Special Judge, Cachar, Silchar, subject to the following conditions : (1) that he will appear before the learned trial court on the dates fixed for the trial without fail; (2) that he will not try to influence the witnesses in any manner; (3) that the will not leave Cachar District without the prior permission of the learned Special Judge, Cachar, Silchar. This disposes of the bail petition. Registry to send down the LCR forthwith. _____________