Bail Appln./2538/2026 of PRITOM ENGLENG Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM on 29 September 2026

ORDER

Date : 30-09-2026 Heard learned counsel Mr. N. Alam RK for the petitioner Pritom Engleng, who has filed this bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with prayer for bail as he is behind bars since 21.11.2025 in connection with NDPS Case No. 11/2026 arising out of Dillai

Police Station Case No. 61/2025 under Sections 21(C)/25/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 r/w Sections 61(2)/123 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

2. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is behind bars for 314 (Three Hundred and Fourteen) days. His right to liberty has been curtailed. Three witnesses have already been examined. If the merits of the case are taken into consideration, this is a case of acquittal. It is submitted that 2 (Two) witnesses have not at all supported the prosecution case. The evidence of independent witness, PW-2, clearly depicts that the petitioner was driving the car. The contraband was recovered from people, sitting at the back seat and they were in possession of the contraband and not the petitioner. The petitioner is not involved in any drug trafficking case. PW-2 has categorically stated that the petitioner was driving the car and he has identified the petitioner as the driver of the car, which was checked by the Investigating Agency.

3. Trial is progressing with leaden feet. 10 (Ten) witnesses are enlisted in the charge sheet. 6 (Six) witnesses are yet to be examined. PW-1 has also categorically stated that the bag containing the contraband was recovered from the possession of Md. Hakim, who is the prime accused in this case. The petitioner being the driver, had no knowledge about the contents in the bag. Obviously being the driver, the petitioner would not be aware of the articles the passengers would carry in their bags. The petitioner cannot be held for conscious possession of any contraband, as he was the driver of the vehicle, which was intercepted by the police, who was on checking duty. Hakim Ali was the person, who was in conscious possession of the bag and the petitioner deserves bail.

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. K.K. Das has raised serious objection. It is submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the petitioner is booked under Section 29 of the NDPS Act. The petitioner is a habitual offender. The scanned copies of the Trial Court Records along with the Case Diary, clearly reveals that the petitioner is a habitual offender. He is also booked under Section 61 (2) of the BNS, 2023. The petitioner cannot be exonerated because he was driving the car. He is complicit and this is the reason why prima facie case was found against him and charge sheet was laid against him.

5. I have considered the submissions at the bar. At this juncture, the evidence cannot be taken into consideration. Trial is progressing at a relative pace and there is no procrastination and protraction of trial, even to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage of trial. 4 (Four) out of 10 (Ten) witnesses have already been examined. The pace with which 4 (Four) witnesses have already been examined within a span of 1 (One) year of investigation, it appears that the Court will conclude the trial at an earlier stage. I have also scrutinized the scanned copies of the Trial Court Records.

6. The FIR unfolds that the police holding a naka checking intercepted one Maruti Suzuki Wagon R car bearing registration No. AS-09K-7808. The team while checking the car, noticed some brown coloured packets, wrapped with duct tape inside a grey coloured school bag and also another cover with printed bedsheet, was used to wrap these packets. The police was informed and the Investigating Team arrived at the place of occurrence. At about 7.30 AM, search was conducted and Morphine was recovered from those packets.This Morphine was marked as “Bintaro”. The recovered contraband was weighed and it was found that the occupants of the vehicle were carrying 1.985 kgs of Morphine. After personal search and search of the vehicle, the relevant articles were seized along with the car and investigation commenced. Prima facie material was found against the present petitioner and charge sheet was laid against him. The petitioner is facing trial. Although the petitioner is behind bars for 314 (Three Hundred and Fourteen) days, yet this Court does not deem it proper to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage. Trial is progressing at a regular pace. The Court has already examined 4 (Four) witnesses out of 10 (Ten) enlisted witnesses. 6 (Six) witnesses are yet to be examined.

7. I have considered the gravity of offence. The provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, acts as an embargo to the bail prayer. The petitioner was carrying almost 2 kgs of contraband in his car. Although the petitioner tried to shirk off the responsibility of being complicit, yet, considering the prima facie materials found against him and considering the progress of trial, it appears that the petitioner is not entitled to bail, at least at this stage of the trial. The merits of this case are not brought to the fore as trial is proceeding against the petitioner.

8. The petitioner’s prayer for bail is rejected at this stage of trial. However, the petitioner is at liberty to subsequently file another bail petition, if trial is procrastinated any further by the Trial Court as well as by the prosecution. This bail order shall not affect the merits of the case.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant