AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
O R D E R
[1] Heard Mr. Serto T. Kom, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. W. Darakishwor, learned Sr. PCCG appearing for the respondents.
The present two bail applications have been filed under Section 483 of the BNSS praying for releasing the accused/ petitioners on bail in connection with the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) Crime No. 05/04/NCB/Imp/WY/CL/2020 NCB, NCB Sub Zonal Unit, Imphal u/s 22(C), 23, 25 and 29 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (65 of 1985) (NDPS Act, for short).
[2] The petitioner in Bail Appln. No. 2 of 2026, viz., Waipho S/o Ubokyi, aged about 25 years, resident of Vill-Myopo, Saigang Region, Buddhaland Tower, Myanmar, is the Accused No. 3 and the petitioner in Bail Appln. No. 3 of 2026, viz., Manglinhao Zou, aged about 40 years, S/o Khamliathang Zou, resident of Moreh Ward No. 3, P.O. & P.S. Moreh, Tengnoupal District, Manipur, is the Accused No. 5 in Special Trial Case No. 14 of 2021 (Ref:- Crime No. 05/04/NCB/Imp/WY/CL/2020 dated 07-12-2020 u/s 22 (C), 23, 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985). For the sake of convenience and clarity, the petitioner in Bail Appln. No. 2 of 2026 and the petitioner in Bail Appln. No. 3 of 2026 will hereinafter be referred to as Accused No. 3 and Accused No. 5 respectively.
[3] As per the prosecution story, the factual matrix resulting in the arrest of both the Accused No. 3 and 5 and registering of Cril. Case against them and remanding them to judicial custody are as under:-
On 07-12-2020, the Officer of NCB, Imphal, received an input about illegal production/ processing of Methamphetamine at makeshift clandestine laboratory at Moreh Ward No. 3 Public Ground, Tengnoupal District, Manipur, which is located just adjacent to the international border with Myanmar. The NCB team reached to a makeshift house like structure and the team assisted as witness by Assam Rifles rushed to the said area and cordoned off all around the makeshift house like structure.
Thereafter, the NCB team in assistance with 43rd Bn. Assam Rifle and the witnesses reached to the suspected house at Moreh Ward No. 3 for probable search and seizure proceedings.
Thereafter, the team reached to the extreme left of the room located at the 1 floor and knocked at the door on which a middle aged person opened the door who introduced himself as Thanglamkhup Zou (Accused No. 1), s/o Haochinthang Zou, r/o Bungmol village, District Chandel, Manipur and permanent address of Tamu, Myanmar. Then the team of NCB Imphal disclosed their identity as well as the identity of independent witnesses and the secret information available with the team was disclosed to Thanglamkhup Zou. The purpose of visiting the house was revealed to him, i.e., for conducting search of his room, on which he agreed. Thereafter, the team of NCB Imphal and witnesses entered the room and found two more persons present in the room. The team introduced themselves as officials of NCB Imphal and informed that they have secret information regarding illegal production/ processing of Methamphetamine drug. On being asked, the other two persons introduced themselves as Paokhtuthang Haokip (Accused No. 2) 5 ta Janda teolop, r/o New Samtal Village, Chandel District, Manipur & Moreh Ward No. 3, Tengnoupal, Manipur & Ms. Manglaruching Zou (Accused No. 4), d/o Liansuanthang Zou, r/o Moreh Ward No. 3, Tengnoupal District, Manipur. Mr. Paokhothang Haokip revealed that he is the owner of the house and let this room on monthly rent basis to Mr. Thanglamkhup Zou (Accused No. 1) for running his business.
During the search of that particular room, contraband suspected to be Methamphetamine along with stones of various sizes/ color and one double bore gun along with live cartridge were recovered. The particulars of the seized articles are as under:-
53.9 kg of suspected Methamphetamine tablets in 49 packets each weighing 1.1 kg
27.4 kg of suspected Methamphetamine loose tablets in a yellow color sac.
44 kg of stones of various colors and sizes packed in different container.
03 no. of mobile phones of Samsung A-70 (Mobile No. 7085953976 IMEI 359753101851963/1, 35975410185 11961/01), Samsung J7 Pro (Mobile no. 9750637331, IMEI 358674086202769/02, 358675086202766/02) recovered from Thanglamkhup Zou and ViVo V.9 (Mobile no. 9366239852, IMEI 868495035817793/ 868495035817785) recovered from Paokhothang Haokip.
One double bore gun model Gun Works India registered no. 39678-014 alongwith 05 No. of live Cartridges packed in the cardboard box Shaktiman Exprss 12.
Rs 1210 of Indian Coins and 630 gm of foreign coins in blue color kitbag.
4.6 kg of Sandal wood packed in a cartoon box.
Aadhar card bearing no. 604029467208 in the name of Manglamching Zou.
One nylon sac containing packing material later marked as PM-1.
A small quantity was taken from each packet/bag mentioned in Sl. No. (i) & (ii) above and tested separately with the Drug detection kit and all the tests yielded positive for the presence of Methamphetamine, a Psychotropic substance listed under the NDPS Act. All the suspected contraband was seized subsequently along with the other material which were recovered. On weighing the total weight of the suspected Methamphetamine tablets was found to be 81.3 kg with packing material.
On reasonable belief that an offence has been committed by the suspects Thanglamkhup Zou (Accused No. 1) Paokhtothang Haokip (Accused No. 2) & Manglamching Zou (Accused No. 4) for illegal possession and transportation of Psychotropic substances under Section 8(c), 22 (c), and 29 of the ND&PS Act, 1985, as amended, the suspected packets of Methamphetamine were seized u/s 42 of the NDPS Act, 1985. The Panchas, the Officer writing the Panchanama and the suspected persons put their signatures on all the seized and packed items for the purpose of identification. The seizure formalities were completed at about 1820 hours.
Thereafter, due to security reason in the area, the seized contraband and other articles were loaded to the official vehicles of NCB. Thereafter suspected persons were served notices under Section 67 of the NDPS Act and enquiry was conducted by NCB team to the three suspected persons. On which Ms. Manglamching Zou (Accused No. 4) revealed that one another Myanamarese fellow namely Waipho (Accused No. 3) residing at nearby location was involved in processing of illegal drugs. She pointed out the suspected house also. The suspected persons were asked to accompany with the team of NCB Imphal for further legal procedure. Hence in continuation with the above seizures and acting on an input as provided by the Accused No 4, the NCB team proceeded at the nearby house at the same location supposed to be production/ processing of Methamphetamine at makeshift clandestine laboratory at around 1830 hrs.
Thereafter, the NCB team in assistance with 43rd Bn. Assam Rifles and the witnesses reached to the suspected house at Moreh Ward No. 3 for probable search and seizure proceedings at about 1830 hours. It was a kachha house made of wood and the team assisted by the Assam Rifles rushed to the said area and cordoned off all around the house.
Thereafter, the team reached to the extreme right side room from the staircase located at the 1 floor and knocked at the door on which a person opened the door who introduced himself as Waipho (Accused No. 3), s/o Ubolkyi, r/o Vill-Myopo, Sagaing region, Bhudhaland Tower, Myanmar. Then the team of NCB Imphal disclosed their identity as well as the identity of independent witnesses and the secret information available with the team. The purpose of visiting the house was revealed to Waipho (Accused No. 3) i.e. for conducting search of his rented room, on which he agreed. At about 1845 hrs, the team of NCB Imphal and witnesses entered the room and found two more persons present in the rooms. On being asked the other two persons introduced themselves as Manglinhao Zou (Accused No. 5), s/o Khamlianthang Zou, r/o Moreh Ward No. 3, Tengnoupal, Manipur, Manipur- 795131 and Nongaihlian Zou (Accused No. 6), d/o Khamlianthang Zou, r/o Ward No.03 Moreh, PS-Moreh, Manipur.
During the search of that particular room, contraband suspected to be Methamphetamine along with, stones of various sizes/color and one 7.65 mm French Pistol along with live cartridge (without any documents for possessing the same) were recovered. The particulars of the seized articles are as under:-
78.1 kg of suspected Methamphetamine tablets in 71 packets each weighing 1.1 kg
ii) 7.97 kg of suspected Methamphetamine powder in a green color nylon sac.
iii) 29.5 kg of suspected Methamphetamine Ice Crystal in a yellow color nylon sac.
iv) 2.2 kg of Grey color granules substance believed to be crude Methamphetamine in a white color nylon sac further kept in a yellow color sac.
10.3 kg of white powder believed to be Crude Methamphetamine in a black color polythene packet.
vi) 28500 no. of Tramadol HC Capsules in a white color nylon sac in form of 2850 strips x 10.
vii) 13500 no. of Pregabalin Capsules in a green color nylon sac in form of 1350 strips x 10. (viii) 140500 no. of Bus Piron: HC tablets in a green color nylon sac in form of 281 bottles x 500.
viii) One Factory made 7.65 mm French Pistol (Walther) LIC EXCLWALTHER MOD. PP. Cal 7.65 mm alongwith 07 Live Rounds which were packed in a plastic box.
ix) 03 no. of mobile phones of Samsung Gelay M30 (Mobile no. 906885914 Myanmarese Airtel SIM, IMEI No. 355696118854211/ 355697118854219, Oppo A5 (Mobile no. 6033858122, IMEI no. 865686047807698/ 865686047807680) recovered from Nongaihlian Zou and Red mi note 7 (Mobile no. 256068147 Myanmarese Airtel, IMEI no. 865048040240601/ 865048040440607 recovered from Waipho.
INR 1030 in form of 500x210x3.
xi) Kyat 1500 in form of 1000x1+500x1.
xii) 105 kg of unpolished stones.
xiii) Identity card in Myanmarese script in the name of Waipho.
xiv) One nylon sac containing packing material.
A small quantity was taken from each packet/bag (R-1 to R-71) mentioned above in Sl. No. (i) to (v) and tested separately with a Drug detection kit and all the tests yielded positive for the presence of Methamphetamine, a Psychotropic substance listed under the NDPS Act. All the suspected contraband was seized subsequently alongwith the other material which were recovered from the joint possession of Waipho, Manglinhao Zou and Nongaihlian Zou. All the packets/bags were weighed with the digital weighing machine carried by NCB Imphal team. The total weight of the suspected Methamphetamine tablets & powder was found to be 86.07 kg. The weight of suspected Methamphetamine Ice Crystal was found to be 29.5 kg. Total weight of suspected Crude Methamphetamine was found to be 12.5 kg. Tramadol HC1 capsule on counting were found to be 28,500 Nos. while other psychotropic substances were counted as 13,500 and 140500 nos.
On reasonable belief that an offence has been committed by the suspects, Mr. Waipho, Mr. Manglinhao Zou and Ms. Nongaihlian Zou and for illegal possession and transportation of Psychotropic substances under Section 8(c), 22 (C), and 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985, as amended, the suspected packets of Methamphetamine were seized u/s 42 of the NDPS Act, 1985. The Panchas, the officer writing the Panchanama and the suspected persons put their signatures on all the seized and packed items for the purpose of identification.
All the seizure formalities were completed on the spot and the Panchnama concluded on the same day at 2045 hrs. The Panchnama was read over to the Panchas and all the 06 accused persons and translated into simple Manipuri and simple English and obtained the dated signatures of Panchas and the accused persons. Due to security reason in the area, all the six suspected persons were served notices u/s 67 of NDPS Act, 1985. Thereafter all the seized articles from both the places collected together and the six accused persons were brought to NCB Imphal office on 08.12.2020 for recording of their voluntary statements.
Thereafter, the voluntary statements of all the accused persons were recorded on 08.12.2020 wherein they confessed their guilt of possessing, warehousing, and trafficking of Methamphetamine & Tramadol. On reasonable belief that they are involved in the crime and recovery of huge quantity of Methamphetamine from their possession, they were arrested u/s 42 of NDPS Act, 1985 on 08.12.2020.
On seizure of the huge quantity of suspected Methamphetamine WY in various forms and other items on 07-12-2020 by the NCB, Imphal, from the accused persons, a case bearing NCB Crime No.05/04/NCB/Imp/ WY/CL/2020 dated 07-12-2020 u/s 22(C), 23, 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act 1985 (as amended) was registered against the accused persons.
Thereafter, medical-legal formalities (including Covid-19 (RT-PCR) test was done and getting negative report they were finally produced before the Hon'ble Court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Moreh, camp office at Imphal (East) along with filing and Offence Report Cum Remand petition and all the seized articles on 09.12.2020. The L'd Magistrate was pleased to remand the accused respondents in judicial custody at Sajiwa Central Jail and Imphal Central Jail. Further it was directed to produce the seized articles along with the contraband before the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Moreh on 10.12.2020. Thereafter the intimation of arrest of all the accused persons was given to their local PS i.e. Moreh PS.
[4] The Accused No. 3, who is a foreign national of Myanmar, had already filed three bail applications before the Special Court NDPS, Lamphel. The first bail application registered as Cril. Misc. (B) No. 52 of 2022 was disposed of on 05-09-2022 by the Special Court NDPS, Lamphel, as not being pressed by the learned counsel appearing for the Accused No. 3. The second Bail Appln. registered as Cril. Misc. (B) No. 244 of 2022 was also disposed of on 28-09-2022 by the learned Special Court NDPS, Lamphel, as not being pressed by the learned counsel appearing for the Accused No. 3. The third Bail Appln. registered as Cril. Misc. (B) No. 193 of 2023 was rejected by the learned Special Court, NDPS, Lamphel, on 05-12-2023 after taking into consideration the embargo under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985 and by expressing the view that, at that stage, there exist no facts and circumstances on record sufficient in themselves to justify the satisfaction that the accused was not guilty of the alleged offence and that there were also nothing on record to show that the accused was not likely to commit any similar offence while on bail. The present application is the fourth Bail Appln. filed by the Accused No. 3.
[5] The Accused No. 5 had also filed three bail applications before the Special Court NDPS, Lamphel. The first Bail. Appln. registered as Cril. Misc. (B) No. 293 of 2020 was dismissed by the learned Special Court NDPS, Lamphel, on 29-01-2021 for non-prosecution. The second Bail Appln. registered as Cril. Misc. (B) No. 35 of 2021 was also rejected by the learned Special Court NDPS, Lamphel, on 17-04-2021. The third Bail. Appln. registered as Cril. Misc. (B) No. 298 of 2023, was also rejected by the learned Special Court NDPS, Lamphel, on 26-04-2024 by recording that the trial is at the stage of PW hearing and in view of the nature and gravity of the alleged offence, the statutory embargo under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985 and the absence of any material at that stage to prima facie indicate that the accused was not guilty of the alleged offence. The present bail application is the fourth bail application filed by the Accused No. 5.
[6] The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that both the petitioners were arrested on 07-12-2020. After completing all the investigation, a Charge-Sheet dated 29-05-2021 was filed by Suresh Kumar Singh, I.O. cum Superintendent, NCB, Sub Zonal Unit, Imphal, for offence under Section 22(c), 23, 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985 (as amended). Thereafter, the trial of the accused had been going on. It has been submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the petitioners have been in custody since their arrest on 07-12-2020 and they have never been released on bail, and as such, the petitioners remain incarcerated for more than five years, pending completion of the criminal trial against them.
[7] It has also been submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the punishment for the charged offence against the petitioners, if convicted, is for a minimum of 10 years imprisonment and a minimum fine of rupees one lakh. The learned counsel vehemently submitted that both the petitioners having remained incarcerated for more than five years and taking into consideration the inordinate delay in completing the trial, there is significant ground for granting bail to the petitioners as it infringes the fundamental rights of the petitioners guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
In support of his contentions, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners cited the following judgments:-
“Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee representing Undertrial Prisoners Vs. Union of India & ors.” reported in (1994) 6 SCC 731, wherein it has been held as under: –
“15.
(i)
“(iii)Where the undertrial accused is charged with an offence(s) under the Act punishable with minimum imprisonment of ten years and a minimum fine of Rupees one lakh, such an undertrial shall be released on bail if he has been in jail for not less than five years provided he furnishes bail in the sum of Rupees one lakh with two sureties for like amount.”
“Shariful Islam alias Sarif Vs. State of West Bengal” reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 2069, wherein it has been held as under –
“2.Taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner is reported to be in custody since 27-1-2021 and has suffered incarceration for over 1 year 6 months and there being no likelihood of completion of trial in the near future, which fact cannot be controverted by the learned counsel appearing for the State, we are inclined to grant him bail.”
“3.The petitioner is, therefore, directed to be released on bail, subject to such terms and conditions which the concerned Trial Court may deem fit and find appropriate to impose upon him.”
“Dheeraj Kumar Shukla Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh” reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 918, wherein it has been held as under –
“3.It appears that some of the occupants of the ‘Honda City’ Car including Praveen Maurya @ Puneet Maurya have since been released on regular bail. It is true that the quantity recovered from the petitioner is commercial in nature and the provisions of Section 37 of the Act may ordinarily be attracted. However, in the absence of criminal antecedents and the fact that the petitioner is in custody for the last two and a half years, we are satisfied that the conditions of Section 37 of the Act can be dispensed with at this stage, more so when the trial is yet to commence though the charges have been framed.”
“4.For the reasons stated above but without expressing any views on the merits of the case, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.”
“Rabi Prakash Vs. State of Odisha” reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1109, wherein it has been held as under –
“4.As regard to the twin conditions contained in Section 37 of the NDPS Act, learned counsel for the respondent - State has been duly heard. Thus, the 1 condition stands complied with. So far as the 2 condition re: formation of opinion as to whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner is not guilty, the same may not be formed at this stage when he has already spent more than three and a half years in custody. The prolonged incarceration, generally militates against the most precious fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and in such a situation, the conditional liberty must override the statutory embargo created under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act.”
[8] Mr. W. Darakishwor, learned Sr. PCCG appearing for the respondents submitted that on recovery and seizure of a huge commercial quantity of contraband, i.e., Methamphetamine tablets and powder weighing about 86.0 kg, Methamphetamine Ice Crystal weighing about 29.5 kg, Crude Methamphetamine weighing about 12.5 kg. Tramadol HC1 capsule of 28,500 numbers and other psychotropic substances counted as 13,500 and 1,40,500 numbers and other arms and ammunitions from the six accused persons, a case bearing NCB Crime No. 05/04/NCB/Imp/WY/CL/2020 dated 07-12-2020 under Section 22(c), 23, 25 and 29 of NDPS Act, 1985 (as amended) was registered against them.
The learned Sr. PCCG submitted that as a huge commercial quantity of contraband and other psychotropic substances were seized from the six accused persons, the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are attracted and that as the petitioners have failed to satisfy the mandatory conditions for grant of bail as provided under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the present bail applications are liable to be rejected outright.
In support of his contentions, the learned Sr. PCCG cited the following case laws:-
“Narcotics Control Bureau Vs. Kashif”, reported in (2024) 11 SCC 372, wherein it has been held as under –
“8.A three-Judge Bench in Hira Singh v. Union of India expressing serious concern about the problem of drug addicts and mafia at the national and international level had observed that the provisions of the NDPS Act are required to be interpreted keeping in mind the object and purpose of the said Act and the impact on the society as a whole. It was also observed that the Act is required to be interpreted literally and not liberally which may ultimately frustrate the object, purpose and Preamble of the Act. The precise observations made therein are reproduced hereunder: (SCC p. 299, para 10)
“10.… 10.5. The problem of drug addicts is international and the mafia is working throughout the world. It is a crime against the society and it has to be dealt with iron hands. Use of drugs by the young people in India has increased. The drugs are being used for weakening of the nation. During the British regime control was kept on the traffic of dangerous drugs by enforcing the Opium Act, 1857; the Opium Act, 1875 and the Dangerous Drugs Act, 1930. However, with the passage of time and the development in the field of illicit drug traffic and during abuse at national and international level, many deficiencies in the existing laws have come to notice. Therefore, in order to remove such deficiencies and difficulties, there was urgent need for the enactment of a comprehensive legislation on narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, which led to enactment of the NDPS Act. As observed hereinabove, the Act is a special law and has a laudable purpose to serve and is intended to combat the menace otherwise bent upon destroying the public health and national health. The guilty must be in and the innocent ones must be out. The punishment part in drug trafficking is an important one but its preventive part is more important. Therefore, prevention of illicit traffic in the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 came to be introduced. The aim was to prevent illicit traffic rather than punish after the offence was committed. Therefore, the courts will have to safeguard the life and liberty of the innocent persons. Therefore, the provisions of the NDPS Act are required to be interpreted keeping in mind the object and purpose of the NDPS Act; impact on the society as a whole and the Act is required to be interpreted literally and not liberally which may ultimately frustrate the object, purpose and Preamble of the Act. Therefore, the interpretation of the relevant provisions of the statute canvassed on behalf of the accused and the intervener that quantity of neutral substance(s) is not to be taken into consideration and it is only actual content of the weight of the offending drug, which is relevant for the purpose of determining whether it would constitute “small quantity or commercial quantity”, cannot be accepted.”
“9.There has been consistent and persistent view of this Court that in the NDPS cases, where the offence is punishable with minimum sentence of ten years, the accused shall generally be not released on bail. Negation of bail is the rule and its grant is an exception. While considering the application for bail, the court has to bear in mind the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which are mandatory in nature. The recording of finding as mandated in Section 37 is a sine qua non for granting bail to the accused involved in the offences under the said Act.”
“50.The upshot of the above discussion may be summarised as under:
“50.1.The provisions of the NDPS Act are required to be interpreted keeping in mind the scheme, object and purpose of the Act; as also the impact on the society as a whole. It has to be interpreted literally and not liberally, which may ultimately frustrate the object, purpose and Preamble of the Act.”
50.2.While considering the application for bail, the court must bear in mind the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act which are mandatory in nature. Recording of findings as mandated in Section 37 is sine qua non is known for granting bail to the accused involved in the offences under the NDPS Act.”
“State of Punjab Vs. Balraj Singh alias Billa” reported in 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1058, wherein it has been held as under –
“17.Keeping in view the above expositions of law, we now proceed to examine the impugned order. The abovementioned decisions of this Court display the consistent view that when it comes to cases involving commercial quantity of narcotics, the mandatory requirements of Section 37 ought to be considered. It is not in dispute that the case at hand, involves commercial quantity. In such a scenario, consideration and reference to the twin conditions enumerated under Section 37 of the NDPS Act was mandatory. Upon a bare perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that there has been no consideration at all by the High Court on the twin conditions. In such a scenario, the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.”
“18.Upon consideration of the case of the respondent against the twin conditions laid down in Section 37, we are of the view that no case for bail is made out. There are antecedents involving commission of offences of the very same nature under the NDPS Act, therefore it cannot be said that he is not likely to commit such an offence while on bail.”
“19.Moreover, the respondent has only undergone 1 year 7 months, and if found guilty a maximum sentence of twenty years may be imposed upon him. Therefore, it cannot be said that he has suffered incarceration for a long period, warranting interference in view of Article 21 of the Constitution.”
“20.While this Court has recognized on several occasions that prolonged incarceration warrants the grant of bail in view of Article 21 of the Constitution, we have noticed that the application thereof is not uniform. Moreover, there is no doubt that what constitutes “prolonged incarceration” for the purposes of bail, has not been expounded by this Court or the law of the land.”
“22.However, we note that recently this Court in Tasleem Ahmed v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi has referred the question concerning the approach of constitutional Courts in bail matters under special statutes, where “Article 21, prolonged incarceration and statutory restrictions intersect”. In view of the said reference, we do not wish to deliberate on this issue further, save and except that in our view paramount consideration is nothing but interest of justice for all. Should there be any conflict between the sovereignty of country and personal liberty, undoubtedly, the former shall prevail, particularly, when a war is waged against the nation, be it in the form of supply of drugs, which vitally affects the national economy and health of the people.”
[9] In response to the contentions made on behalf of the petitioners regarding the inordinate delay in completing the trial viz., Special Trial Case No. 14 of 2021 (Ref:- Crime No. 05/04/NCB/Imp/ WY/CL/2022 dated 07-12-2020 u/s 22(c), 23, 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985), it has been submitted by the learned Sr. PCCG that altogether only six prosecution witnesses were produced and examination and cross examination of all the six PWs have already been completed on 24-03-2025 and the trial is at the stage of Section 313 of the CrPC, 1973 for examination of the Accused.
[10] The learned Sr. PCCG submitted that Accused No. 1 (Thanglamkhup Zou) was granted bail on 18-02-2023, Accused No. 2 (Paokhtothang Haokip) was granted bail on 05-04-2021, Accused No. 4 (Manglamching Zou) was granted bail on 28-12-2022 and Accused No. 6 (Nongaihlian Zou) was granted bail on 12-08-2021. Out of the said four accused persons, who have been granted bail, three accused persons, i.e., Accused No. 1, Accused No. 4 and Accused No. 6 are absconding. The remand and Accused Examination was fixed on 21-04-2025, however, Accused Examination cannot be proceeded further as Accused No. 1, 4 and 6 were absconding.
[11] It has also been submitted by the learned Sr. PCCG that Warrant of Arrest against Accused No. 1, 4 and 6 were issued on 20-05-2025 and after due procedure, proclamation under Section 82 of the CrPC, 1973, were passed by the learned Special Judge, NDPS, Manipur, against Accused No. 1, 4 and 5 on 12-05-2025. It has also been submitted that the delay in proceeding with the trial is due to absconding of the said three accused persons and that process has been initiated for segregating the trial in respect of Accused No. 1, 4 and 6 and proceeding the trial against Accused Nos. 2, 3 and 5 and that the trial can be completed within a short period of time.
[12] It has further been submitted by the learned Sr. PCCG that taking into consideration the stage of the trial and the delay being caused due to absconding of some of the accused persons, it cannot be said that there has been an inordinate delay in completing the trial and such delay is attributable either to the prosecution or the learned Special Court.
To buttress his arguments, the learned Sr. PCCG cited the following case laws:-
“Abdul Rehman Antulay & ors. Vs. R.S. Nayak & anr.” reported in (1992) 1 SCC 225, wherein it has been held as under –
“83.But then speedy trial or other expressions conveying the said concept — are necessarily relative in nature. One may ask — speedy means, how speedy? How long a delay is too long? We do not think it is possible to lay down any time schedules for conclusion of criminal proceedings. The nature of offence, the number of accused, the number of witnesses, the workload in the particular court, means of communication and several other circumstances have to be kept in mind. For example, take the very case in which Ranjan Dwivedi (petitioner in Writ Petition No. 268 of 1987) is the accused. 151 witnesses have been examined by the prosecution over a period of five years. Examination of some of the witnesses runs into more than 100 typed pages each. The oral evidence adduced by the prosecution so far runs into, we are told, 4000 pages. Even though, it was proposed to go on with the case five days of a week and week after week, it was not possible for various reasons viz., non-availability of the counsel, non-availability of accused, interlocutory proceedings and other systemic delays. A murder case may be a simple one involving say a dozen witnesses which can be concluded in a week while another case may involve a large number of witnesses, and may take several weeks. Some offences by their very nature e.g., conspiracy cases, cases of misappropriation, embezzlement, fraud, forgery, sedition, acquisition of disproportionate assets by public servants, cases of corruption against high public servants and high public officials take longer time for investigation and trial. Then again, the workload in each court, district, region and State varies. This fact is too well known to merit illustration at our hands. In many places, requisite number of courts are not available. In some places, frequent strikes by members of the bar interferes with the work schedules. In short, it is not possible in the very nature of things and present day circumstances to draw a time-limit beyond which a criminal proceeding will not be allowed to go. Even in the USA, the Supreme Court has refused to draw such a line. Except for the Patna Full Bench decision under appeal, no other decision of any High Court in this country taking such a view has been brought to our notice. Nor, to our knowledge, in United Kingdom. Wherever a complaint of infringement of right to speedy trial is made the court has to consider all the circumstances of the case including those mentioned above and arrive at a decision whether in fact the proceedings have been pending for an unjustifiably long period. In many cases, the accused may himself have been responsible for the delay. In such cases, he cannot be allowed to take advantage of his own wrong. In some cases, delays may occur for which neither the prosecution nor the accused can be blamed but the system itself. Such delays too cannot be treated as unjustifiable — broadly speaking. Of course, if it is a minor offence — not being an economic offence — and the delay is too long, not caused by the accused, different considerations may arise. Each case must be left to be decided on its own facts having regard to the principles enunciated hereinafter. For all the above reasons, we are of the opinion that it is neither advisable nor feasible to draw or prescribe an outer time-limit for conclusion of all criminal proceedings. It is not necessary to do so for effectuating the right to speedy trial. We are also not satisfied that without such an outer limit, the right becomes illusory.”
“P. Ramachandra Rao Vs. State of Karnataka” reported in (2002) 4 SCC 578, wherein it has been held as under –
“29.For all the foregoing reasons, we are of the opinion that in Common Cause case (I) [as modified in Common Cause (II) and Raj Deo Sharma (I) and (II) the Court could not have prescribed periods of limitation beyond which the trial of a criminal case or a criminal proceeding cannot continue and must mandatorily be closed followed by an order acquitting or discharging the accused. In conclusion we hold:
(1)The dictum in A.R. Antulay case is correct and still holds the field.
(2)The propositions emerging from Article 21 of the Constitution and expounding the right to speedy trial laid down as guidelines in A.R. Antulay case adequately take care of right to speedy trial. We uphold and reaffirm the said propositions.
(3)The guidelines laid down in A.R. Antulay case are not exhaustive but only illustrative. They are not intended to operate as hard-and-fast rules or to be applied like a straitjacket formula. Their applicability would depend on the fact situation of each case. It is difficult to foresee all situations and no generalization can be made.
(4)It is neither advisable, nor feasible, nor judicially permissible to draw or prescribe an outer limit for conclusion of all criminal proceedings. The time-limits or bars of limitation prescribed in the several directions made in Common Cause (I), Raj Deo Sharma (I) and Raj Deo Sharma (II) could not have been so prescribed or drawn and are not good law. The criminal courts are not obliged to terminate trial or criminal proceedings merely on account of lapse of time, as prescribed by the directions made in Common Cause case (I), Raj Deo Sharma case (I) and (II). At the most the periods of time prescribed in those decisions can be taken by the courts seized of the trial or proceedings to act as reminders when they may be persuaded to apply their judicial mind to the facts and circumstances of the case before them and determine by taking into consideration the several relevant factors as pointed out in A.R. Antulay case and decide whether the trial or proceedings have become so inordinately delayed as to be called oppressive and unwarranted. Such time-limits cannot and will not by themselves be treated by any court as a bar to further continuance of the trial or proceedings and as mandatorily obliging the court to terminate the same and acquit or discharge the accused.
(5)The criminal courts should exercise their available powers, such as those under Sections 309, 311 and 258 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to effectuate the right to speedy trial. A watchful and diligent trial Judge can prove to be a better protector of such right than any guidelines. In appropriate cases, jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC and Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution can be invoked seeking appropriate relief or suitable directions.
(6)This is an appropriate occasion to remind the Union of India and the State Governments of their constitutional obligation to strengthen the judiciary — quantitatively and qualitatively — by providing requisite funds, manpower and infrastructure. We hope and trust that the Governments shall act.
We answer the questions posed in the orders of reference dated 19-9-2000 and 26-4-2001 in the abovesaid terms.”
[13] It has been pointed out by the learned Sr. PCCG that Accused No. 1 is a foreign national from Myanmar, Accused No. 3 is also a foreign national from Myanmar, Accused No. 4, 5, and 6 are residents of Moreh Ward No. 3, which is situated just adjacent to the international border with Myanmar. The learned Sr. PCCG submitted that after availing the bail, the Accused No. 1, 4 and 6 have absconded and that there is reasonable ground for apprehending that Accused No. 3 and 5 may also abscond after availing bail to avoid facing trial. This apprehension is supported by the fact that Accused No. 3 is a foreign national from Myanmar and Accused No. 5, who is residing near the international border with Myanmar, can also abscond after availing bail by going into Myanmar and it will be near impossible to secure them again for facing their trial. The learned Sr. PCCG also submitted that there is no ground or reason for believing that accused persons after absconding will not commit another crime of similar nature as smuggling of drugs is a very lucrative one. The learned Sr. CCG, accordingly, prays for rejecting both the bail applications.
[14] I have heard at length the arguments advanced by both the learned counsel appearing for the parties and also carefully examined all the materials available on record. In the present case, it is an undeniable fact that all the accused, including the Accused No. 3 and 5 were arrested on 07-12-2020. Both the Accused No. 3 and 5 remained incarcerated since their arrest without availing any bail for the last more than five years. It is also on record that after availing bail the Accused No. 1, 4 and 6 have absconded and avoiding the trial. It is also on record that the prosecution have produced only six witnesses and examination and cross-examination of the 6 PWs have been completed long back on 24-02-2025 and the trial is at the stage of examination of the accused. Only because of absconding of the three accused persons, the trial cannot be proceeded further. It has also been submitted by the learned Sr. PCCG that the process for segregating the trial and proceeding it against Accused No. 2, 3 and 5 is underway and that the trial can be completed within a short period of time.
[15] The Accused No. 3 is a foreign national of Myanmar and Accused No. 5 is a resident of Moreh Ward No. 3 which lies just adjacent to the international border with Myanmar and as such, they are similarly situated with the absconding Accused No. 1, 4 and 6. In view of such existing position, this court found force and merit in the submission advanced by the learned Sr. PCCG that after availing bail, there is likelihood of the Accused No. 3.and 5 also absconding to avoid facing the trial and that it will be near impossible to secure them again. There is also no reason for disbelieving the submission made on behalf of the respondent that the process has been initiated for segregating the trial and proceeding it against the presently available three accused viz. Accused No. 2, 3 and 5 and that the trial can be completed within a short period of time. This court also found force and merit in the submission made by the learned Sr. PCCG that there is no reason for disbelieving that after availing bail, the Accused No. 3 and 5 may abscond to avoid facing the trial and that there is likelihood of the accused persons committing similar offence as smuggling of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances is a very lucrative one.
[16] In view of the narratives made so far and the findings and observations made above, this court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners and, accordingly, both the present bail applications are hereby rejected.