Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010090812025 2025:GAU-AS:6099 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1393/2025 MUJIBUR RAHMAN S/O- ABDUL HAMID , R/O- VILLAGE- BRAHMAN SASHON , P.S-NILAMBAZAR, DIST.- KARIMGANJ, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R SARMA, S. CHOWDHURY,A H CHOUDHURY Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER Date : 16-05-2025 Heard learned counsel Mr. R. Sarma for the petitioner Mujibur Rahman, who has filed this application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with prayer for bail as he is behind bars since 08.06.2023, in connection with Special (NDPS) Case No. 59/2023 arising out of Nilambazar Police Station Case No. 111/2023 under Sections 21(c)/25/29 of Narcotic and Page No.# 2/3 Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 2. Heard Mr. D.P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that trial has been procrastinated and his right to personal liberty has been curtailed. Moreover, the grounds of arrest were not communicated to the petitioner in a manner which could be understood by the petitioner and the petitioner deserves bail on that score alone. 4. It is submitted that two co-accused have already been granted bail arising out of the same cause of action in connection with Bail Application No. 3015/2024 wherein vide order dated 08.04.2025, Zabel Hussain @ Jabel Hussain was granted bail and in connection with Bail Application No. 1370/2025 wherein vide order dated 14.05.2025, Abdul Hasim was granted bail. 5. On the contrary, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. D.P. Goswami has raised serious objection stating that 300 grams of Heroin was alleged to have been transported by the petitioner. The petitioner is booked under a heinous offence and there is every possibility that the petitioner will again repeat such offence if he is enlarged on bail. 6. I have considered the submissions at the bar with circumspection. It is true that the petitioner is booked under a heinous offence but at the same time, it is also true that the petitioner has been behind bars for more than 22 (Twenty Two) months and only 1 (One) out of 8 (Eight) witnesses has been examined so far. The culmination of trial appears to be remote. The grounds of arrest were also not communicated to the petitioner in a manner through which he could Page No.# 3/3 understand the grounds of arrest in compliance with the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana & Anr. reported in 2025 (0) Supreme (SC) 283. 7. It appears that bail may be granted to the petitioner. 8. Considering all aspects, the petitioner is enlarged on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac) with two local sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court under the conditions that :- (i) the petitioner shall refrain from such activities with which he is alleged, (ii) the petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without prior permission till completion of trial and, (iii) the petitioner shall not exercise threats to the witnesses or try to influence them. 9. On breach of any of the bail conditions, the Court is at liberty to immediately cancel the bail granted to the petitioner. 10. In terms of the above observation, this Bail Application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant