Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010197152025 2025:GAU-AS:13042 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2896/2025 SAHEB ALI @ SAHAB ALI S/O- LATE MOHRUM ALI. R/O- VILL.- GURKUCHI, KOIRARA, RANGIA, WARD NO.1, P.S.- RANGIA, DIST.- KAMRUP, ASSAM, PIN - 781354. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A PAUL, MS. M M KALITA,MD. M. ALI Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER 19.09.2025 1. Heard Mr. A. Paul learned counsel for the petitioner Saheb Ali @ Sahab Ali who has filed this application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 with prayer for bail as he is behind bars since 05.06.2023 in connection with Special NDPS Case No. 37/2023 arising out of Rangia Police Station Case No. 323/2023 registered under Sections 17(C)/29/27/A of the NDPS Act, 1985. 2. Heard Mr. K. K. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, for the respondent State. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the other co-accused have already been released on bail. The grounds of arrest have not been properly communicated to the petitioner in a manner which would not have been difficult for the petitioner to perceive and as per the guidelines of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana, reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 269. 4. It is submitted that since 14.02.2025 not a single witness has been examined and the petitioner’s right to liberty has been curtailed as the prosecution and the Court has procrastinated the case. 5. The petitioner has also prayed for bail on the length of detention. It is submitted that the Annexure 6 and 7 of the petition clearly reflects that the grounds of arrest have not been properly communicated to the petitioner. It is submitted that the contraband was not recovered from the possession of the Page No.# 3/4 petitioner. If the evidence of the witnesses PW 1, 2 and 3 are scrutinized, there is no evidence against the petitioner. 6. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has raised serious objection stating that the petitioner's prayer for bail has been rejected not once but thrice. No change of circumstances on which the petitioner has prayed for bail has been reflected by the petitioner. The trial has not been procrastinated by the prosecution or by the court. Trial is proceeding at a regular pace. Five out of nine witnesses have been examined. At this fragment of the trial, if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, the petitioner may flee from justice. 7. I have considered the submissions at the bar with circumspection. It is true that the petitioner has been behind bars for more than 2(two) years. The merits of this case are not required to be dealt with at this stage. 8. On 04.06.2023, the Rangia Police received an information regarding transportation of drugs by one dealer namely Jiaul Hoque and Najibul Hoque @ Dhan Ali. The police staff reached the place of occurrence and apprehended the accused, Jiaul Hoque, but the other accused, Najibul Hoque @ Dhan Ali managed to escape. The petitioner was a pillion rider on a motorcycle and the police had recovered 3.51 kgs of opium, which was being carried by Jiaul Hoque and Saheb Ali. 9. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that Saheb Ali was the pillion rider and he was not carrying the contraband. The petitioner is innocent. 10. I have considered the submissions at the bar with circumspection. At this stage, the petitioner's plea of innocence cannot be considered. Charge sheet has been laid against him and trial is proceeding against him. 11. However, I have considered the length of detention. I have also relied on the Page No.# 4/4 decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vihaan Kumar (Supra). The notice reveals that grounds of arrest were not properly communicated to the petitioner. 12. It appears that bail may be granted to the petitioner. Considering all aspects, the petitioner is enlarged on bail of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) 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 co-operate with the trial. 13. On breach of any of the bail conditions, the Trial Court is at liberty to immediately cancel the bail granted to the petitioner. 14. In terms of the above observation, this application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant