Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010272512024 2025:GAU-AS:2008 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./3966/2024 MD. SADDAM S/O WASHI AKHTAR, R/O N.K. DARRANGA, P.S.-TAMULPUR, DIST- TAMULPUR (ASSAM) VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MS G DEKA, Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER Date : 25.02.2025 Heard Ms. G. Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. S. Lahkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. 2. This is an application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 praying for grant of Page No.# 2/4 bail to the accused/petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with Special NDPS Case No. 11/2024, under Section 22(c) of NDPS Act, arising out of Tamulpur P.S. Case No. 280/2023, pending before the Court of learned Special Judge, Baksa at Mushalpur. 3. Scanned copy of the case record has already been received. Perused the same. Heard both sides. 4. It is submitted by Ms. Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the present accused/petitioner is behind the bar for more than 15 (fifteen) months and in his absence, his entire family, including his 4 (four) minor children, are suffering a lot. The petitioner being the only bread earner of the family, there is no one to look after his family members. She further submitted that out of 16 (sixteen) numbers of prosecution witness, 12 (twelve) numbers of witnesses have already been examined including the vital witness, though the I.O. could not be examined by the prosecution till date. She further submitted that the witnesses have also not implicated the present petitioner showing his involvement in the alleged offence. Thus, considering this aspect of the case, viz-a-viz the period of long incarceration, she submitted that the bail prayer of the present petitioner may be considered and he may be allowed to go on bail. He, being the permanent resident of his addressed locality, will regularly appear before the learned Trial Court below as and when the date is fixed. 5. Mr. Lahkar, learned Additional Public Proecutor, submitted in this regard that the case is proceeded expeditiously. The charge was framed on 06.05.2024 and within 9 (nine) months, 12 (twelve) numbers of witnesses are already been Page No.# 3/4 examined. However, the I.O. could not be examined by the prosecution till date. More so, he submitted that the PWs- 7, 8 & 9 had implicated the present accused/petitioner and hence, it cannot be said that there was no incriminating materials in the evidence of the PWs nor it can be held that there is probability of acquittal of the present accused/petitioner. 6. Mr. Lahkar further submitted that since the case relates to commercial quantity, rigor of Section 37 of NDPS Act will follow wherein the twin condition has to be satisfied that the accused is not guilty of the offence and there has to be a belief that the accused will not repeat or commit the same offence while on bail. But, from the materials available in the Case Record and Case Diary, it cannot be said that the present petitioner is innocent, he has not committed such offence nor there is any probability of committing similar kind of offence if he is released on bail. Accordingly, he raised vehement objection and submitted that it is not at all a fit case to enlarge the accused/petitioner on bail at this stage. 7. After hearing the submissions made by the learned counsels for both sides and on perusal of the case record as well as the Case Diary, it is seen that there are sufficient implication against the present petitioner in this case and it cannot be held that the accused is innocent or he will not commit the offence while on bail as required under Section 37 of NDPS Act to consider a bail application in a case of commercial quantity. It is a fact that the accused/petitioner is behind the bar for a considerable period, but in the same time, it also cannot be denied that the case is proceeded expeditiously and within 9 (nine) months, 12 (twelve) numbers of witnesses, out of 16 (sixteen) witnesses, are already been Page No.# 4/4 examined. However, the prosecution could not produce the I.O. for his examination, who is a vital witness for the entire prosecution case. 8. In view of above and also considering the progress of the trial as well as the nature of the offence, I do not find it justified to allow the accused/petitioner to go on bail only considering the period of detention and therefore I am of the view that this is not a fit case to extend the privilege of bail to the present petitioner at this stage and accordingly the same stands rejected. However, the learned Special Judge is hereby directed to make all endeavour to record the evidence of I.O./informant as expeditiously as possible and will also make endeavour for completion of trial within 6 (six) months from the date of passing of this order. 9. In terms of above, this bail application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant