Page No.# 1/4 GAHC040009082025 2025:GAU-AP:750 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : BA/69/2025 Jumdo Doji Son of Late Pojum Doji, permanent resident of Village Doji Jeko, PO and PS Aalo, West Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh. VERSUS The State of AP represented by the PP of AP Advocate for the Petitioner : Marto Kato, Yasmin Gao,Kamin Teri,M Tanga,Nyali Sora,Mepe Ete Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG ORDER Date : 18-06-2025 Heard Mr. Mepe Ete, learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also heard Mr. D. Loyi, learned PP for the State of AP. 2. This is a subsequent bail application filed under section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 for granting bail to the accused, Dorik Doji, who has been arrested in Page No.# 2/4 connection with the Aalo PS case no. 14/2025 under section 21(a)/27(a)/27(A) of the NDPS Act, 1985. 3. Earlier, on 01.05.2025, the bail application filed for release of the accused in connection with Aalo PS case no. 14/2025 under section 21(a)/27(a) of the NDPS Act, 1985 was rejected by the Special Judge, NDPS , Aalo on the ground that the accused is a habitual offender and a drug supplier with a criminal mind of using digital illegally and that there is an apprehension that he might hamper or tamper with the evidence of the case. The further ground for rejection was that the investigation of the case was yet to be completed. 4. In this bail application, the petitioner has not taken any new ground for release of the accused person. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor while referring to the Trial court record submits that now the case has already been submitted into chargesheet. He further submits that initially the case was registered against the accused under section 21(a)/27(a) of the NDPS Act, 1985, however, after completion of the investigation, the IO filed chargesheet against the accused under section 21(a)/27(a)/27(A) of the NDPS Act, 1985. The learned PP further submits that earlier the bail prayer for release of the accused was rejected after hearing the parties and consideration of the material on record on merit. After filing of the chargesheet, section 27A has been included which provides punishment for financing illicit traffic and harboring offenders and the punishment for the offence under section 27A is imprisonment for the term which shall not be less than 10 years but which may extend to 20 years and shall also be liable to be fined which shall not be less than Rs. 1 lakh but which may extend to Rs. 2 Page No.# 3/4 lakhs. The learned PP also contended that there is an incriminating material found against the accused for commission of the alleged offences. Now the case has already been taken cognizance of by the learned Special Judge, NDPS, Aalo and fixed for appearance/production of the accused. He further submits that as recorded earlier by the learned Trial court, there is every possibility of the accused influencing the witnesses, therefore, under the circumstances, the accused may not be released on bail at this stage. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner fairly conceded that earlier the bail plea for release of the accused was rejected on certain grounds and the petitioner has not taken any new grounds for the release of the accused except that he has been inside the custody for more than 60 (sixty) days since his arrest and that as the case has already been chargesheeted, he is no longer required to be remanded for the purpose of investigation. The learned counsel for the petitioner however submitted that the accused is a lone bread earner and he has to look after his business which is the only source of his income for the entire family and that he would be able to defend his case properly from outside the jail. 7. I have heard the submission of both the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record produced before this Court. 8. Considering the serious nature of allegation against the accused for commission of the alleged offence and the material found on record, and also considering that the earlier bail plea for release of the accused was rejected on the ground that the accused is a habitual offender and a drug supplier with a criminal mind of using digital illegally, and that there is an apprehension that he Page No.# 4/4 might hamper or tamper with the evidence of the case, and further that the petitioner has not taken any new ground for the release of the accused, I am not inclined to grant bail to the accused at this stage. 9. Accordingly, this bail application is rejected. 10. Return the Trial court record. JUDGE Comparing Assistant