TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (10) TMI 462
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ner/ accused namely Mr. Seiminthang Mate in connection with FIR No. 49(12) 2022 TPL-PS U/s 21(c)/29 & 60 (3) ND & PS Act, 1985 and iii. Pass any order/direction which the Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case as to meet the end of justice. Brief facts of the present case are as follows: 3. On 16.12.2022, the 20th Assam Rifles, Tengnoupal while in normal course of checking found illegal contrabands drugs (49 packets of Brown Sugar weighing about 2.163 kg including packing materials) hidden inside the seat of a Mahindra Bolero bearing registration no. MN 01AG 9896 (white colour) being driven by Mr. Mamang along with two passengers namely Mr. Seiminthang Mate (petitioner herein) and Mr. Pandian of Ward No. 4, Premnagar, Moreh, Manipur. While checking, the driver/owner of the said vehicle went to the toilet and fled into the nearby dense jungle. Thereafter, seizure memo and arrest memo were made for the two passengers and later handed over to the Officer-in-Charge of Tengnoupal PS. On the same day, the Tengnoupal PS registered an FIR No. 49(12) 2022 TPL-PS U/s 21(c)/29 & 60 (3) ND & PS Act. On 17.12.2026, the petitioner and other a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s not automatic. Violation of mandatory provisions of Sections 50 and 57 of the Act is also alleged by the petitioner. Rigors of Section 37 of the Act will not be applicable, as there is no material to link the seizure of contrabands from the petitioner. 5. Mr. Osbert, learned counsel further continues that the petitioner was first arrested on 16.12.2022 and he has been in custody for more than three and half years and there is slow progress in the trial and it is not likely to complete the trial in near future. It is highlighted, learned Spl Judge (NDPS), Chandel is also in charge of Family Court, Manipur at Lamphelpat, Imphal (which is more than 60 km apart). It is pointed out that the petitioner has no past involvement in any criminal case except the present case and hence, the twin test is in his favour. Reliance is placed on a decision of this Court in the case of Ngangom Somorendro Singh v. Officer-in-Charge, Moreh Police Station, [order dated 19.12.2022 in Bail Application No. 17 of 2022], where in absence of any material of previous involvement of narcotic case, an accused who was in custody for four months was leased on bail. Learned counsel also refers another decision....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ourt to record satisfaction on the twin requirements noticed above, in addition to the ordinary tests under the Code of Criminal Procedure. In that case, High Court without appreciating the fact that the petitioner, arrested in connection with commercial quantity of narcotics substance on earlier occasion, does not satisfy the twin tests of statutory satisfaction as laid down by Section 37(1)(b) of ND&PS Act. It is prayed that the bail application be rejected. 7. This Court has considered the materials on record and the decisions cited at bar. The admitted facts are: (i) since his arrest on 16.12.2022, the petitioner is in custody for more than three and half years; (ii) the trial is at a slow pace; (iii) the petitioner is a first time offender and has no previous involvement in similar cases; (iv) apart from the fact that he was travelling in the vehicles from which commercial quantity narcotic substance was seized, any other material is not annexed with the charge sheet; and (v) no material is on record to link or suspect the petitioner as owner of the seized vehicles. 8. With regards to the submission of Mr. Osbert, learned counsel for the petitioner to the point that long....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ction 37 of ND&PS Act has to be satisfied, in view of the principle laid down in Balraj Singh @ Billa (supra). Since the question of interplay of rigor of bail in special statute and long incarceration along with the principle of speedy trial laid down in Article 21 of the Constitution, is pending before larger bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court, and in view of the decision of Sundeep Kumar Bafna (supra); the principle of law, stands as on date, has to be followed by High Court and Trial Court. Mere pendency of the question before the larger bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court will not empower the High Court or Trial Court to have a different view apart from the settled position of law propounded in Balraj Singh @ Billa (supra), as the law stands as on date. The same is in view of the principle of Article 141 of the Constitution that all other Courts in India are bound by law declared by Hon'ble Supreme Court. [15] In other words, while examining the bail application in a special statute such as ND&PS, the twin tests laid down in Section 37 of the ND&PS Act has to be followed while considering bail application on the ground of long incarceration without any trial or in a trial with....