JUDGMENT : Anjan Moni Kalita, J. Heard Mr. D. Ullah, learned counsel appearing for the accused-applicant. Also heard Mr. S. C. Keyal, learned Standing Counsel, NCB. 2. The instant application has been filed, under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, for granting bail to the accused-applicant in connection with NDPS Case No. 16/2024, under sections 21(C)/29 of NDPS Act, in connection with NCB Guwahati Crime No. 12/2023, pending before the Court of Addl. District & Sessions Judge No. 1, Kamrup (M), Guwahati. 3. Case was registered as NCB Crime No. 07/2025, under the aforesaid sections before the aforesaid Trial Court. The accused applicant was arrested on 01.08.2023 and since then, he is in judicial custody. 4. It is seen from the records that the accused-applicant had earlier, on two occasions, approached this Court for his bail, however, on both the occasions, his prayers for bail were rejected on 14.11.2024 and 13.05.2025 respectively. 5. The matter relates to recovery of 0.673 kgs. of Heroin, which is much more than commercial quantity as prescribed in the NDPS Act, 1985, from the conscious possessions of the accused-applicant and another co-accused from the Room No. 16 of Goswami Lodge, near Down Town, Guwahati on 01.08.2023, while the accused- applicant was staying in the said Lodge along with another co-accused, namely, Bijay Gupta. Both the accused persons arrived at Guwahati from Manipur in a Maruti Gypsy bearing Registration No. MM-03-P-5705. 6. On being tested by the Drug Detection Kit from each of the 59 soap cases, from which said Heroin were recovered, those gave positive result for Heroin. Accordingly, the aforesaid contraband materials contained in 59 soap cases were seized from the conscious possession of the accused persons. The investigating authority had seized the Maruti Gypsy vehicle, Mobile phones, Driving License etc. from the accused-applicant. It is also seen that FSL report dated 06.11.2023, pertaining to the seized contraband narcotics recovered from the possession of the accused-applicant, gave positive result for Heroin. After completion of investigation, offence report was submitted before the learned Special Judge (NDPS)-cum-Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Kamrup (M), Guwahati, against the accused persons, including the accused-applicant, under Sections 20(C)/21(C)/29 of the NDPS Act on 23.02.2024. It is also seen from the records that prosecution has already examined 4(four) of it’s witnesses till date. 7. After completion of investigation, offence report was submitted before the learned Special Judge (NDPS)-cum-Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Kamrup (M), Guwahati, against the accused persons, including the accused-applicant, under Sections 20(C)/21(C)/29 of the NDPS Act on 23.02.2024. It is also seen from the records that prosecution has already examined 4(four) of it’s witnesses till date. 7. The learned counsel for the accused-applicant submits that the accused-applicant has been falsely implicated with the instant case as he was just a bearer of the consignment containing the alleged contraband materials and he was not aware of the fact that the consignment contained contraband materials. The learned counsel submits that though it has been alleged that the seizure of the contraband materials was from his conscious possession, however, from the facts as revealed, it cannot be said that the contraband materials were seized from the conscious possession of the accused- applicant. The learned counsel further submits that while arresting the accused- applicant, the arresting authority has not complied with the provisions of Section 50 of the Cr.P.C. and thereby, violated the provisions of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel further submits that the accused-applicant was arrested on 01.08.2023 and since then, for more than last 2(two) years, the accused-applicant is languishing in jail. He submits that such long incarceration during the pendency of the trial, is a settled ground for allowing him to go on bail. 8. To reinforce his submissions, the learned counsel for the accused-applicant has referred to the cases of Vihaan Kumar Vs. The State of Haryana , reported in (2025) SCC OnLine SC 269, and Prabir Purkayastha Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) , reported in (2024) 8 SCC 254 , relating to non-compliance of the mandatory provisions under Section 50 of the Cr.P.C. As for his submission that long incarceration in judicial custody pending trial is also a ground for bail, he has referred to the case of Rabi Prakash Vs. State of Odisha , reported in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 533 as well as the case of Dr. Sangeeta Dutta Vs. The State of Assam & Anr . (Bail Appln. No. 2805/2025, Judgment dated 18.11.2025) of this Court. 9. State of Odisha , reported in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 533 as well as the case of Dr. Sangeeta Dutta Vs. The State of Assam & Anr . (Bail Appln. No. 2805/2025, Judgment dated 18.11.2025) of this Court. 9. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel, NCB, submits that there is no violation of the provisions of Section 50 of the Cr.P.C. The learned counsel further submits that rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act will be applicable in the instant case and long incarceration cannot be a ground for releasing the accused-applicant on bail without the mandates of Section 37 being satisfied by the accused-applicant. In this connection, the learned Standing Counsel has referred to the case of Union of India Vs. Vigin K. Varghese , reported in 2025 INSC 1316 wherein, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that in an offence under NDPS Act, wherein, the contraband materials seized is much more than of commercial quantity, the rigour of Section 37 shall still be applicable and only on the ground of prolonged incarceration, an accused cannot have an unfettered right to be released on bail. The learned counsel further referred to case decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court i.e. Union of India Vs. Namdeo Ashruba Nakade {SLP (Crl.) No. 9792/2025} , on 07.11.2025 10. This Court has gone through the materials brought on record as well as perused the Trial Court Record (TCR) meticulously. 11. It is seen from the TCR that while arresting the accused-applicant, notice under Section 50 of the Cr.P.C., was issued to the accused-applicant which bears the signature of the accused-applicant. The notice also contained particulars of the case as well as the relevant Sections under which the accused-applicant was arrested. It was also informed to him that he has been arrested in a non-bailable case and he would be forwarded to the Court and he can submit his petition for bail before the Court. Along with Section 50Cr.P.C. notice, a detailed Memorandum of Arrest was also issued to the accused- applicant, which was also duly signed by the accused-applicant. It is seen from the Memorandum of Arrest that detailed grounds of his arrest were mentioned in the Memorandum. Along with Section 50Cr.P.C. notice, a detailed Memorandum of Arrest was also issued to the accused- applicant, which was also duly signed by the accused-applicant. It is seen from the Memorandum of Arrest that detailed grounds of his arrest were mentioned in the Memorandum. The Memorandum also contained a noting which reveals that intimation of arrest of the accused-applicant was given to his wife, namely, Smt Lhingneichong Haokip on her mobile phone i.e. 7085989203, immediately after the arrest of the accused-applicant on 02.08.2023. It is also seen from the records that an intimation about the arrest of the accused-applicant was also sent to his wife on her address i.e. village-Damdei Taloulong, Behind Children’s Home, P.O. & P.S.-Motbung, District- Kangpokpi, Manipur, PIN-795107 on 02.08.2023, immediately after his arrest. A similar intimation was also sent on the very same date i.e. on 02.08.2023 to the Officer In- charge, Police Station-Gamnom Saparmeina, Senapati, Manipur-795107 for necessary information about the arrest of the accused-applicant. 12. From the above materials as mentioned in the preceeding paragraph, it is seen that the mandates of Section 50, Section 50A as well as other provisions of the Cr.P.C. have been substantially complied with by the arresting authority at the time of the arrest of the accused-applicant. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the contention of the learned counsel for the accused-applicant that, there is violation of Section 50 of the Cr.P.C. on arrest of the accused-applicant is not tenable and liable to be negated. 13. Coming to the point of the right of bail to the accused applicant on the ground of prolonged incarceration and the applicability of the mandates of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of Rabi Prakash (supra) has held that a prolonged incarceration, generally militates against the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and in such a situation, the conditional liberty must override the statutory embargo created under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act. In the case of Rabi Prakash (supra) , the facts of the case was, admittedly, that the accused person therein was in judicial custody for more than three (3) and a half years. There were no criminal antecedents against the accused person. In the case of Rabi Prakash (supra) , the facts of the case was, admittedly, that the accused person therein was in judicial custody for more than three (3) and a half years. There were no criminal antecedents against the accused person. Further, though the trial had commenced in the case, only one (1) out of Nineteen (19) witnesses had been examined by then and the Hon’ble Apex Court had come to a conclusion that the trial will take some more time to be completed. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, therefore, taking into account all those very materials and relevant aspects of the case, had opined that prolonged incarceration was a ground in the peculiar facts of that case and observed that conditional liberty must override the statutory embargo created under Section 37(1) (b)(ii) of the NDPS Act. However, in the case of Vigin K. Varghese (supra) , the Hon’ble Apex Court, in Paragraphs 17 to 21 held as follows: - “ 17. The High Court then, on the strength of those premises, recorded a finding that there exist reasonable grounds to believe that the applicant is not guilty of the alleged offence, treating prolonged incarceration and likely delay as the justification for bail. Such a finding is not a casual observation. It is the statutory threshold under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) which would disentitle the discretionary relief and grant of bail must necessarily rest on careful appraisal of the material available. A conclusion of this nature, if returned without addressing the prosecution's assertions of operative control and antecedent involvement, risks trenching upon appreciation of evidence which would be in the domain of trial court at first instance. 18. This Court ordinarily shows deference to the discretion exercised by the High Court while considering the grant of bail. However, offences involving commercial quantity of narcotic drugs stand on a distinct statutory footing. Section 37 enacts a specific embargo on the grant of bail and obligates the Court to record satisfaction on the twin requirements noticed above, in addition to the ordinary tests under the Code of Criminal Procedure. 19. In the present case, the High Court has not undertaken the analysis of those twin requirements with reference to the material placed by the prosecution. 19. In the present case, the High Court has not undertaken the analysis of those twin requirements with reference to the material placed by the prosecution. The orders dated 22.01.2025 and 12.03.2025 do not advert to the allegation regarding the respondent's prior involvement in a seizure of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances only days prior to the seizure forming the subject matter of the present complaint, nor do they engage with the prosecution's assertion as to the respondent's role in arranging, importing, clearing and supervising the consignments. The omission to consider these factors bears directly upon the statutory satisfaction required by Section 37(1)(b). 20. We are of the view that, in the facts of this case, it would not be appropriate for this Court at the threshold stage itself to render findings on whether there are or not reasonable grounds, for believing that the respondent is not guilty, or on whether he is likely to commit any offence while on bail. That factual assessment, which the statute requires to be made and recorded with seasons, is one that the High Court must undertake upon a complete and fair appraisal of the rival contentions based on materials placed before it. 21. In our considered view, the interests of justice would be met if the impugned orders are set aside and the matter is remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration of the respondent's prayer for hail, keeping in view the parameters of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the nature and quantity of contraband alleged to have been seized including 50.232 kilograms of Cocaine on 06.10.2022 and 07.10.2022, the role attributed to the respondent in the said import, the allegation of his involvement in an earlier seizure of 198.1 kilograms of methamphetamine and 9.035 kilograms of cocaine in early October 2022, the period of custody undergone since October 2022, and the stage of trial before the Special Court.” 14. It may be relevant to discuss the case of Namdeo Ashruba Nakade (supra) also, the observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court shall be important in adjudication of the instant case on hand. Paragraphs 11 to 13, being relevant, are extracted herein below:- “ 11. It may be relevant to discuss the case of Namdeo Ashruba Nakade (supra) also, the observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court shall be important in adjudication of the instant case on hand. Paragraphs 11 to 13, being relevant, are extracted herein below:- “ 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.” 15. From the above discussion on the judicial pronouncements of the Hon’ble Apex Court, it is clear that while deciding a bail application under the NDPS Act, wherein, the mandates of Section 37 has to be complied with, the Court has to take into consideration various aspects involved in the case, though, an accused person may have been in jail for prolonged duration. A prolonged incarceration has to be weighed vis-à-vis the other aspects like, the nature of the crime, the quantity of seized contraband materials, prior antecedents or involvement of the accused person in similar nature of crimes, possibility of influencing witnesses or the trial and also the prima facie opinion of the Court as to his probable conviction or acquittal. In this connection, the case of Mohd Muslim @ Hussain Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) , reported in (2023) SCC OnLine SC 352, being relevant, is being discussed. The Hon’ble Apex Court, while considering a bail application under the NDPS Act, 1985 had observed as follows: - “ 19. In this connection, the case of Mohd Muslim @ Hussain Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) , reported in (2023) SCC OnLine SC 352, being relevant, is being discussed. The Hon’ble Apex Court, while considering a bail application under the NDPS Act, 1985 had observed as follows: - “ 19. A plain and literal interpretation of the conditions under Section 37 (i.e., that Court should be satisfied that the accused is not guilty and would not commit any offence) would effectively exclude grant of bail altogether, resulting in punitive detention and unsanctioned preventive detention as well. Therefore, the only manner in which such special conditions as enacted under Section 37 can be considered within constitutional parameters is where the court is reasonably satisfied on a prima facie look at the material on record (whenever the bail application is made) that the accused is not guilty. Any other interpretation would result in complete denial of the bail to a person accused of offences such as those enacted under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.” From the above observation of the Hon’ble Apex Court, it is very clear that a case has to be made out by the accused for a Court to prima facie come to a conclusion whereby the mandates of Section 37 (1)(b)(ii) could be dispensed with. 16. Coming to the facts of the case in hand, it is seen from the records that contraband materials i.e. Heroin was seized from the conscious possession of the accused-applicant from the room where he has been staying along with another co-accused. The FSL report has already confirmed that the contraband materials seized was Heroin. It is also seen from the records that the accused-applicant has antecedents of his involvement in similar offence under the NDPS Act. One of such case is still pending before the Court of the learned Special Judge (NDPS), (FTC), Manipur, which is registered as Special Trial Case No. 03/2024, under Sections 21(b)/22(b)/60(3) of the NDPS Act. In another case, as submitted by the learned counsel for the accused-applicant, the accused-applicant has already been acquitted. Therefore, from the aforesaid facts, it is clear that there are antecedents of the accused-applicant been involved in similar kind of offences under the NDPS Act. In another case, as submitted by the learned counsel for the accused-applicant, the accused-applicant has already been acquitted. Therefore, from the aforesaid facts, it is clear that there are antecedents of the accused-applicant been involved in similar kind of offences under the NDPS Act. As discussed earlier, this Court, apparently, did not find any violation of the mandates of Section 50 of the Cr.P.C, rather, while arresting the accused-applicant, the necessary mandates under Section of Cr.P.C. seemed to have been complied with. 17. Another factor which is relevant in consideration of the instant bail application is the stage of the trial. It is seen from the records that 4(four) out of 11(eleven) PWs have already been examined and the trial in the instant case, is moving on in a reasonable speed. Therefore, prima facie, it looks like that the completion of the trial will not take much time. 18. The learned Counsel for the accused applicant referred to the case of Dr. Sangeeta Dutta (Supra) wherein, this Court has taken prolonged incarceration as one amongst several grounds in granting bail to the accused person. However, that case is not relevant in the instant case, reason being, in the instant case the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act is present whereas in the case of Dr. Sangeeta Dutta (Supra) , the same is absent. 19. From the above discussion and in consideration of the materials available on record, including the Trial Court Record, this Court is of prima facie opinion that the involvement and guilt of the accused-applicant cannot be ruled out at this stage. The evidence of the 4(four) PWs examined till date also point fingers to the guilt of the accused-applicant, as the contraband Heroin, much more than commercial quantity was seized from the conscious possession of the accused-applicant. Therefore, in the considered view of this Court, this is not a case for dispensing with the mandatory requirements of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. 20. In view of the aforesaid discussions and conclusion arrived at by this Court, the instant application does not impress this Court for a bail to the accused applicant at this stage. Accordingly, the bail application is disposed of as rejected. 21. Sent back the TCR.