AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This bail application under Section 483 of BNSS is filed for granting bail to the accused-in-custody namely, Pramod Kumar in connection with Mungiakami P.S. case No.14 of 2025 under Sections 20(b)(ii)(c)/25/29 of NDPS Act and Sections 177/192A/197 of MV Act.
Heard Learned Counsel, Mr. P. Sahu appearing on behalf of the accused person-in-custody and also heard Learned P.P., Mr. R. Datta appearing on behalf of the State-respondent.
At the time of hearing Learned Counsel for the accused-in-custody first of all drawn the attention of the Court that the accused is lodging in custody on and from 20.10.2025 till today and during the said period he has been admitted in the Cancer Hospital almost for the entire period, excepting a very limited period in custody and his condition is gradually deteriorating, so, for the purpose of proper treatment, Learned Counsel urged for releasing the accused person on bail in any condition. In support of his condition Learned Counsel relied upon one judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.4729 of 2026, dated 05.05.2026, wherein on the ground of long incarceration in jail for more than one year, bail was granted. Similarly, in another case of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Special Leave to Appeal Criminal No. 3221 of 2023, Hon'ble the Supreme Court by order dated 04.05.2023 on the ground of incarceration in custody bail was granted. He also relied upon another order dated 16.05.2023 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.4862 of 2023, wherein on the ground of illness, bail was granted. He also referred few other judgments of High Courts, like Jammu & Kashmir, Jharkhand etc. Referring those citations, Learned counsel for the accused person-in- custody urged for releasing the accused on bail in any condition.
On the other hand, Learned P.P. appearing on behalf of the State-respondent strongly opposed the bail application and submitted that mere suffering from illness is not a genuine ground for granting bail, where there is direct material against the accused person showing his involvement with the alleged offense. It was further submitted that the Superintendent, Kendriya Sansodhanagar also has made one communication to him, wherein it has been specifically mentioned that his health condition is clinically stable and fit for travel and the concerned Medical Officer of Kendriya Sansodhanagar, Bishalgarh also had issued one certificate that the accused person is clinically stable.
In support of his contention Learned PP referred one judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in (2022) 15 SCC 515 [State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Gayatri Prasad Prajapati], (2022) 18 SCC 374 [Narcotics Control Bureau vs. Mohit Aggarwal] and (2024) 15 SCC 36 [State of Meghalaya vs. Lalrintluanga Sailo & Anr.].
He submitted that in view of the aforesaid judgments, there is no scope to grant bail to the accused person-in-custody and urged for dismissal of the bail application.
Heard both the sides at length.
Admittedly, at the time of hearing Learned Counsel for the accused person-in-custody only sought bail on the ground of illness of the accused person-in-custody but Learned Counsel in course of hearing did not submit as to whether the accused person-in-custody requires bail for the purpose of his treatment outside or not, nor he submitted that the treatment provided to him by the Jail Authority was insufficient.
Admittedly, the accused person has been lodging in jail for long period and he has given time to time medical aid at the Cancer Hospital, Agartala by the Jail Authority. Learned Counsel at the time of hearing did not submit anything as to why bail was so required. However, Learned Counsel at the time of hearing drawn the attention of the Court referring one copy of order dated 14.10.2026 passed by Learned Special Judge, Court No. 2, Khowai, Tripura in connection with Special (NDPS) 20 of 2026, wherein by the said order Learned Counsel in-charge Special Judge (NDPS) further posted the case on 10.11.2026 for production of accused person from J/C and to supply of accused copy and ER. It was also submitted that in this case there are three accused persons. Out of three one is still languishing in jail namely, Binod Debbarma excluding the present accused person and warrant of arrest has been issued against another accused person namely, Miss. Iram Abdullah. It is not known when the warrant of arrest issued against the said accused person would be executed. In this case contraband item of commercial quantity was seized from the possession of the present accused person and another. So, simply on the ground that the accused person was suffering from illness, the rigors of Section 37 of NDPS Act could not be excluded at this stage. Since the accused has failed to satisfy the Court that the treatment initiated by the respondent-authority was improper and insufficient, so, at this stage considering the materials on record, I am not inclined to consider bail to the accused person-in-custody.
Accordingly, the bail application stands rejected being devoid of merit. The accused is to remain in J/C as before.
However, Superintendent, Kendriya Sansodhanagar, Bishalgarh is further asked to take all necessary precaution in respect of treatment of the accused person-in-custody, so that no lacuna remains from the side of the Jail Authority regarding medical treatment of the accused person.
However, liberty is also given to the accused person-in-custody to pray for further bail if the treatment provided by the respondent-authority is found to be improper and insufficient.
With this observation, this bail application stands disposed of.
Send a copy of this order to the Learned Special Judge, Court No.2, Khowai, Tripura in connection with Special (NDPS) No.20 of 2026.
Return back the Case Diary to I.O. though Learned P.P. along with a copy of this order for information.