Page No.# 1/6 vs The State Of Assam on 7 April, 2026

                                                                        Page No.# 1/6

GAHC010028242026




                                                                  2026:GAU-AS:5198

                              THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
   (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                                Case No. : Bail Appln./462/2026

            JAHINUR ISLAM
            S/O SIRAFUDDIN
            VILL-JORDANGA PART-I
            P.S.MANCACHAR
            DIST. SOUTH SALMARA MANKACHAR, ASSAM



            VERSUS

            THE STATE OF ASSAM
            REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM



Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. A T SARKAR, S R DAS

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,




                                      BEFORE
                       HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA


                                           ORDER

Date : 07.04.2026.

Heard Mr. A.T. Sarkar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M.P. Goswami, learned Addl. P.P., Assam appearing for the State respondent.

Page No.# 2/6

2. This is the second application under Section 483 of BNSS, praying for grant of bail to the accused/petitioner, namely, Jahinur Islam in connection with the Special (N) Case No. 22/2025, arising out of Mankachar P. S. Case No.165/2025, under Sections 22(C) of NDPS Act, which is pending before the Court of learned Special Judge, South Salmara-Mankachar.

3. The scanned copy of the Trial Court Record along with the Case Diary has already been received and perused the same.

4. It is submitted by Mr. Sarkar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the accused/petitioner is innocent and he has not committed any such offence as alleged in the FIR and nothing has been seized from the conscious possession of the petitioner though it is alleged that some cough syrup and capsules of commercial quantity was recovered and seized from the house of the accused petitioner. But there is no specific mention as regards from where the contraband substances were alleged to have been recovered. Further, it is a fact that the petitioner was absent at the time of seizure and recovery of the contraband from his house. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that from the evidence of the seizure witnesses also it is seen that they do not know in detail about the description of the seizure list and has no personal knowledge about the seizure. Mr. Sarkar, the learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that initially after filing of the charge sheet, the accused petitioner prayed for anticipatory bail and as per direction of the Court, he surrendered before the learned Special Judge, South Salmara-Mankachar on 21.08.2025 and since then he is in the custody for last 219 days. Charge has already been framed and three prosecution witnesses have already been examined out of 10 cited witnesses by the prosecution. The learned counsel Page No.# 3/6

further submitted that the three seizure witnesses have no personal knowledge about the recovery of contraband and from the evidence of the PW.2, it is also seen that at the time of seizure and recovery of the contraband, no family members of the accused petitioner was present in the house. Thus, there is no evidence of any conscious possession of the contraband from the accused petitioner. So considering this aspect of the case vis-à-vis the length of detention already undergone by the accused petitioner, his prayer for bail may be considered. Furthermore, the learned counsel for the accused petitioner submitted that the he is a permanent residents of the addressed locality and hence, there is no chance of absconding, rather he will regularly appear before the learned Trial Court below as and when the date is fixed.

5. Mr. Goswami, the learned Addl. P.P., Assam appearing for the State respondent raised vehement objection and submitted in this regard that till the filing of the charge sheet, the accused petitioner was absconding and he never cooperated with the investigation of this case. However, after his arrest, the charge was framed on 23.09.2025 and subsequently three prosecution witnesses were also examined by the prosecution. The next date was fixed for further evidence on 24.03.2026, however it is not known as to whether any further evidence was recorded by the prosecution on that date. Accordingly, Mr. Goswami, the learned Addl. P.P., Assam submitted that the trial is proceeding in a right pace and within a reasonable period, three prosecution witnesses have already been examined by the prosecution and thus, it cannot be stated that there is any violation of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India. He further submitted that it is a case of commercial quantity and hence, the twine conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act have to be followed. But at the stage of trial, it cannot be held that the accused petitioner is not guilty of the Page No.# 4/6

offence or there is no probability of committing similar kind of offence in future, if he is released on bail which is required for satisfying the twine conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Accordingly, Mr. Goswami submitted that considering the gravity of the offence, it is not at all a fit case to grant bail to the accused petitioner at this stage, who is allegedly invoved in a case of commercial quantity.

6. Hearing the submissions made by the learned counsels for both sides, I have also perused the scanned copy of the case record and the case diary as well as the annexure filed along with the bail petition.

7. It is the case of the petitioner that he is in custody for 7 (seven) months and 7 (seven) days and till date and the prosecution could examine only 3 (three) witnesses out of 10 (ten) cited witnesses and hence, considering the period of incarceration, the prayer for bail may be considered. Further it is the case of the petitioner that there is no probability of disposal of the case within a short or reasonable period, as some of the vital witnesses are yet to be examined by the prosecution. On the other hand, it is the case of the defence that the accused/petitioner is alleged to have committed the offence under the commercial quantity of the NDPS Act and hence, only on the ground of long incarceration, he cannot be enlarged on bail.

8. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the accused/ petitioner that there is no recovery of contraband from the conscious possession of the accused/petitioner and at the time of alleged recovery, he was not present in the house and in his absence only the alleged recovery of contraband is made from his house. But from the case record as well as from the submissions made Page No.# 5/6

by the learned Addl. P.P., Assam it is seen that the accused/petitioner along with two other persons fled away from the scene and thereafter the investigating team visited the house of the accused/petitioner, wherefrom the entire contraband was recovered. thus, it cannot be stated that the accused was not conscious about the availability of the contraband in his house to held that there was no recovery from the conscious possession of the accused/petitioner. However, from the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is seen that some of the seizure witnesses were not aware about the detail description of the contraband which were stated to be seized from the house of the accused/petitioner. But at the same time, it is also seen that the witnesses denied to the suggestion that nothing has been recovered from the house of the accused/petitioner. More so, there are many witnesses, who are yet to be examined and hence, at this stage it cannot be held that the accused is not guilty of the offence or there is no reasonable ground for believing that he is not guilty for such offence as required under Section 37 of the NDPS Act to consider the bail application. It is an admitted position that the case is of commercial quantity and hence, the rigor of Section 37 of the NDPS Act will follow.

9. For ready reference, Section 37 NDPS Act is extracted hereinbelow:

"37. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable.

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

(b) No person accused of an offence punishable for offences under section 19 or section 24 or section 27A and also for offences involving commercial quantity shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless--

(i)the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and Page No.# 6/6

(ii)where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail."

10. Further, from the record it also reveals that the charge was framed on 23.09.2025 and within a reasonable period three witnesses have already been examined by the prosecution and thus it cannot be held that there was a delay in the trial of the case to violate the Article 21 of the Indian Constitution or to consider his bail application on the ground of long incarceration.

11. In view of this and also considering the nature of the allegation brought against the present accused petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that the accused petitioner is not entitled to bail at this stage and accordingly, the same is rejected and disposed of. However, it is expected that the learned Trial Court shall make an endavour to dispose of the connected Special (N) Case No. 22/2025, preferably with a period of six months from the date of the order.

12. The bail petition stands rejected and disposed of.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant