Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010177392025 2025:GAU-AS:12892 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2609/2025 AKLAS UDDIN LASKAR S/O- SOFOR ALI LASKAR. R/O- NATUN RAMNAGAR PT-IV, P.S.- SONAI, DIST.- CACHAR, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR H R A CHOUDHURY, S S AHMED,MR. M. A. CHOUDHURY,S NAZNIN,MR. I U CHOWDHURY Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER 18-09-2025 Heard Mr. HRA Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. I. U. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K. Baishya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State respondent. 2. This is an application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 praying for grant of bail to the accused/petitioner, namely, Aklas Uddin Laskar, who has been arrested in Page No.# 2/5 connection with NDPS Case No. 5/2024 arising out of Sonai P.S. Case No. 32/2023 under Sections 21(C)/22(C)/23/25/27A/29 of the NDPS Act, pending in the Court of learned Special Judge, Cachar, Silchar. 3. Scanned copy of the TCR has already been received. Perused the same. 4. It is submitted by Mr. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel that as per the order dated 13.08.2025, the status report was called for along with the report, as to whether any order has been passed on the petition filed by the petitioner praying for splitting up the case record. But, till date as per the knowledge of the petitioner, there is no order of splitting up of the case record. 5. Mr. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel further submitted that while disposing the earlier bail application for the present petitioner in BA No. 3907/2024 dated 02.05.2024, the learned Special Judge was directed for speedy trial of the case, but till date no charge was framed against the present petitioner. 6. Mr. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the present petitioner was earlier arrested in connection with this case on 01.03.2023 and his interim bail was considered on 03.07.2023 and subsequently, the order of interim bail was rejected by the Court on 12.01.2024. Thereafter, the petitioner again approached this Court with a bail application seeking pre-arrest bail, wherein vide order dated 19.06.2024, the petitioner was directed to approach the learned Trial Court with an appropriate application for bail. In pursuance to the said order, accused petitioner accordingly, surrendered before the learned Trial Court on 01.08.2024 and since then, the accused petitioner is in custody for more than 413 days. He further submitted that one co-accused is still absconding for which, the case could not be proceeded and the learned Special Judge also did not pass any order for splitting up the case records for the present petitioner till date. 7. So considering his long period of incarceration, his prayer for bail may be considered. That apart, the petitioner himself surrendered before the learned Special Page No.# 3/5 Judge and being a permanent resident of the address locality, there is no chance of his absconding, if he is provided with the privilege of bail. Rather, he will regularly appear before the learned Special Judge and to contest the case accordingly. 8. Mr. Baishya, learned Addl. PP submitted in this regard that the petition for splitting up of the case record was filed by the present petitioner, but the petition has not yet been disposed of by the learned Special Judge till date. 9. Further, Mr. Baishya, learned Addl. PP fairly submitted that including his earlier period in custody, the petitioner is in custody for 563 days as on today. He further submitted that the present accused petitioner is fully involved in the alleged offence and Yaba Tablets were initially recovered from the possession of the petitioner and one of the co-accused and thereafter, on the disclosure made by the petitioner, police recovered heroin from the other co-accused, namely, Abdul Kalam and thus he was very much aware about the contraband which was kept in the house of the co- accused and Yaba Tablets was directly recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner. 10. Further, Mr. Baishya submitted that only the ground of delay in conclusion of the trial cannot be the sole ground for releasing the accused on bail and the gravity of the offence and the allegations of tempering with the evidence also should be considered while dealing with the bail application for bail. In that context, he also relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Sri Darshan reported in (2025) SCC OnLine 1702 and emphasized on paras 20.4, 20.4.1 and 20.4.2, which read as under: 20.4. Filing of charge sheet or lengthy list of witnesses does not justify grant of bail. 20.4.1. It is well settled that the mere filing of a charge-sheet does not confer an indefeasible right to bail. Likewise, the mere prospect of a prolonged trial cannot, by itself, outweigh the gravity of the offence, the incriminating material gathered during investigation, or the likelihood of tampering with witnesses. 20.4.2. In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs. Rajesh Ranjan (supra), this Court Page No.# 4/5 categorically held that: "The High Court could not have allowed the bail application on the sole ground of delay in the conclusion of the trial without taking into consideration the allegation made by the prosecution in regard to the existence of prima facie case, gravity of offence, and the allegation of tampering with the witness by threat and inducement when on bail. ... non-consideration of the same and grant of bail solely on the ground of long incarceration vitiated the order..." 11. Further, Mr. Baishya, submitted that the petition for splitting up of the case record is still pending before the learned Trial Court below and the learned Special Judge may be directed to dispose of the petition for splitting up of the case record and thus, Mr. Baishya, submitted that only considering the length of detention or period of incarceration, the prayer for bail of the petitioner may not be considered. 12. Heard the submissions of the learned counsel for both sides and I have also perused the scanned copy of the records. 13. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner initially was on interim bail and after vacation of his interim bail order, he approached this Court with a bail application seeking pre-arrest bail, wherein he was directed to appear before the learned Special Judge within 15 (fifteen) days from the date of the order i.e., 19.06.2024 and in pursuance of the said order, he also surrendered before the learned Special Judge on 01.08.2024, though it was not within the period of 15 (fifteen) days time, but it cannot be denied that the present petitioner surrendered himself before the learned Special Judge. But when his prayer for bail was rejected, the petitioner again approached this Court in another application seeking bail and vide order of this Court dated 02.05.20254, his prayer for bail was rejected. 14. From the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties as well as from the report, it is seen that the petitioner filed a petition for splitting up of the records on 02.07.2024, but it reveals from the records that his prayer for splitting up of the case record is still pending before the learned Special Judge and the petition is not yet disposed of. Page No.# 5/5 15. At the same time, it is also an admitted fact that till date charges could not be framed against the petitioner as two co-accused persons of the case are still absconding and inspite of several efforts, the co-accused of the case could not be apprehended till date, which also delayed in the disposal of the case. But considering the view of the Hon’ble Apex Court as relied by the learned Addl. PP Mr. Baishya, and other aspects of the case including the merit of the case, wherein it is seen that the contraband was recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner along with one co-accused and at the same time the other contraband i.e., heroin was also recovered from the disclosure statement made by the present petitioner from the house of one of the co-accused person and also considering all other aspects of the case, the prayer for bail of the present petitioner namely, Aklas Uddin Laskar, in connection with NDPS Case No. 5/2024 arising out of Sonai P.S. Case No. 32/2023 under Sections 21(C)/22(C)/23/25/27A/29 of the NDPS Act, pending in the Court of learned Special Judge, Cachar, Silchar is hereby rejected at this stage. 17. The learned Special Judge, Cachar, Silchar is hereby directed to pass an appropriate order on the petition filed by the petitioner on 02.07.2025 praying for splitting up of the case record. 30. In terms of above, this bail application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant