Page No.# 1/5 GAHC020007412025 2025:GAU-NL:565 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH Case No. : Bail Appln./25/2025 SMTI KHOLCHA W/O SHRI PAUL PAOLEN KHONGSAI, PHALJOL VILLAGE, H.NO. 75, PHAIJOL, PEREN, NAGALAND VERSUS STATE OF NAGALAND KOHIMA NAGALAND Advocate for the Petitioner : ALEMWAPANG AO, M ANYEI,Y S PHOM Advocate for the Respondent : P.P, NAGALAND, BEFORE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER ORDER 24/11/2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Alemwapang Ao. Also heard Ms. S. Mere, learned Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. The Trial Court Records have already been received and perused. Page No.# 2/5 3. This application U/S 483 of the BNSS has been filed praying for release of the alleged accused Mr. Letkhohao on bail pending disposal of the Special Case No. 05/2024 arising out of Tseminyu PS Case No. 003/2024 U/S 21(C) NDPS Act w/r Section 34 BNS. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the accused was arrested on 20.03.2025 at Kangpokpi PS in connection with the instant case. It is stated that the accused was asked to appear before the Kangpokpi PS on two occasions and as such being a law abiding citizen, the alleged accused person in good faith appeared before the Police on both occasion. However, he was arrested on the second occasion on 20.03.2025 at the Kangpokpi Police station. 5. It is stated that no illegal substances were seized from the possession of the alleged accused at the time of arrest and no recovery was made from him. His name is also not mentioned in the FIR and there is no concrete materials linking the alleged accused person to the arrest contraband in the instant case, he was also not apprehended from the place where the recovery was made nor was he found in conscious possession at the time of his arrest. It is further stated that the bank statements of the alleged accused also clearly indicates that he has no incriminating transaction history with any of the co-accused in the instant case. 6. The further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the accused does not know any of the other co-accused and he has been charged and arrested in the present case only on the basis of statements Page No.# 3/5 made by the co-accused before the police during the investigation and also on the basis of his statements made during investigation before the Police which are not admissible in evidence; besides that there is no other material to link the present alleged accused to the instant case. 7. Another submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there are around 15 witnesses and the prosecution has prayed for time to produce additional witnesses in the course of the trial. In the present case, the charged sheet has been already submitted and charge was framed against the accused on 23.09.2025 and the trial is at the initial stage. It is also stated that the present alleged accused is liable to be released on bail on the ground of parity in as much as the co-accused have already been released on bail by various orders of the learned Trial Court and among them the order dated 28.04.2025 in I.A./31/2025 has been annexed in the petition by which two co-accused Rajesh Singh and Depojit have been released on bail by the trial court by order dated 28.04.2025 on the ground that the trial will take time. It is stated that the co-accused Rajesh Singh and Depojit were also charged sheeted under the same sections i.e, Section 21(C) NDPS Act and Section 27(a)/29 of the NDPS Act R/w 34 IPC. However, they have already been released on bail on 28.04.2025. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner therefore submits that even on the ground of parity, the alleged accused is entitled to be released on bail. 9. Learned Public Prosecutor, Ms. S. Mere appearing for the State respondent vehemently objected to the present bail application on the Page No.# 4/5 ground that the present accused is the main supplier in the instant case and as per the supplementary charge sheet, it can be easily understood that it was the present alleged accused who had been supplying the contraband substances to one co-accused Matthew SH on different occasions starting from 2022 to 2025. It is stated that the co-accused Matthew SH had been granted bail by the Trial Court on the ground of bereavement as his mother had passed away when he was in custody. And it is pertinent that the said co-accused has been absconding since the time he was granted bail and has not appeared before the trial court till date. 10. Learned P.P submits that since the present alleged accused is the main accused in the present case, the ground of parity does not arise as the other co-accused are merely couriers and not the main suppliers. It is submitted that in the event, the present alleged accused is released on bail, he will continue to indulge in similar offence and is liable to abscond. She therefore submits that the present application may be dismissed. 11. The court has considered the submission of the counsels of the parties and also perused the trial court. Upon going through the same, it is seen that the alleged accused has been arrested on 20.03.2025. The charged had been framed against him on 23.09.2025 and the evidence has already stated on 12.11.2025. Admittedly, the co-accused Rajesh Singh and Depojit were released on bail on the ground that submission of the supplementary charge sheet would take time. However, as on date it is seen that the supplementary charge sheet has already been filed and the trial has commenced. The supplementary charge sheet reveals that there Page No.# 5/5 is prima facie against the alleged accused for the offences U/S 21(C)/27 A/29 NDPS Act, which amounts to commercial quantity attracting the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. This court is also of the view that examination of 15 witnesses would not take an inordinately long time since, the trial has already commenced. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed at this stage. However, the Trial Court shall expedite the trial. JUDGE Comparing Assistant