Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010174872025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2612/2025 KUMUD BORO AND ANR SON OF KHAGEN BORO, VILL- BALAHATI P.S. GORESWAR, DIST. TAMULPUR, ASSAM, PIN-781366 2: KAJAL RAY S/O LATE JATIN RAY VILL- NO. 1 BOGRIKHUTI P.O. DONGARGAON P.S. AND DIST. TAMULPUR ASSAM PIN-781368 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S AHMED, T UDDIN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR ORDER 09.12.2025 1. Heard Mr. S. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. D.P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam. Page No.# 2/3 2. By the last order, this Court had directed that the scanned copies of the proceedings of the trial court conducted after 26.08.2025 be obtained and placed along with the records. 3. This is a bail application filed under Section 483 of the BNSS in connection with Special NDPS Case No. 15/2024 under Section 20(b)(ii)C of the NDPS Act, arising out of Goreswar P.S. Case No. 32/2024, pending before the learned Special Judge, Baksa. The petitioners were shown as arrested in the case on 06.08.2024. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioner was in judicial custody from 30.07.2024 in connection with Tamulpur P.S. Case No. 178/2024. During the period of such custody, the petitioner was shown as arrested in the present case, i.e., Goreswar P.S. Case No. 32/2024 on 06.08.2024. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that by an order dated 22.10.2024, the Special Judge, Baksa, Mushalpur, had allowed the bail petition of the petitioner in connection with Tamulpur P.S. Case No. 178/2024. However, due to the pendency of Special NDPS Case No. 15/2024, the petitioner was not released on bail and has continued to remain in custody since 30.07.2024. The learned counsel further submits that, in view of the long detention of the petitioner and the fact that none of the prosecution witnesses examined so far have made any statements against the petitioner in Special NDPS Case No. 15/2024, the prayer for bail may be considered by this Court. 6. The learned APP has submitted that 9 out of 13 prosecution witnesses have already been examined. It is submitted that the investigation in the present case was completed within a period of two months from the date of lodging of the FIR, and the charges were framed on 04.01.2025. The learned APP further Page No.# 3/3 submits that one of the most vital witnesses, namely, the owner of the vehicle from which a commercial quantity of 42.75 kgs of Ganja, without packing, was recovered, is yet to be examined. Therefore, releasing the petitioner at this stage may hamper the prosecution. 7. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the TCR placed before us. In view of the stage of the prosecution, the fact that several witnesses are yet to be examined, the involvement of a commercial quantity of Ganja, and the petitioner’s alleged involvement in other cases, this Court is not inclined to grant the privilege of bail to the petitioner at this stage. 8. The bail petition is accordingly rejected. The petitioner shall be at liberty to apply for bail after the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is completed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant