Page No.# 1/5 GAHC040012402025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : BA/92/2025 Domo Doji Son of Shri Jumdo Doji, a 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 : Kemo Lollen, Arun Yun,Maryum Sora,Geli Taye,D Ado Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP, Page No.# 2/5 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG ORDER 15.09.2025 Heard Mr. K. Lollen, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. T. Ete, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. 2. The present application, being the fourth successive bail application, is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking granting bail to the accused, Dorik Doji, who was arrested by the Aalo Police in connection with Aalo P.S. Case No. 14/2025, registered under Sections 21(a)/27(a)/27A/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, read with Sections 238/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. 3. It is submitted that the first bail application, being Bail Appln. No. 17/2025, was rejected by the Court of the learned Special Judge (NDPS), Aalo, on 01.05.2025. The second bail application, being Bail Appln. No. 69/2025, was moved before this Court but was also rejected on 18.06.2025 on merit. In the meantime, the case was submitted into the charge sheet and the learned Trial Court, by its order dated 01.07.2025, took cognizance of the offence and registered the matter as NDPS Case No. 04/2025 (Aalo), corresponding to Aalo P.S. Case No. 14/2025. 4. The third bail application was rejected by the learned Special Judge (NDPS), Aalo on 22.07.2025, on the ground that the accused is a prime drug peddler operating a systematic supply chain in Aalo and Pasighat region; the accused is of a shrewd disposition, who had allegedly misused digital technology to deceive the public and mislead the police, and that there existed a strong Page No.# 3/5 possibility of the accused influencing or threatening witnesses. 5. Mr. Lollen, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the accused has been implicated and arrested solely on the basis of the statement made by a co-accused, and no independent material evidence exists against him. The accused has been inside the custody since 06.04.2025 for about 114 days. 6. It is further submitted that the investigation is completed, the charge sheet has been filed, and the trial has commenced. In these circumstances, the possibility of the accused tampering with evidence is non-existent. Therefore, considering the length of detention already undergone by the accused and his willingness to cooperate with the trial by appearing before the learned Trial Court on every date fixed, it is prayed that the accused be enlarged on bail. 7. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the bail application and submits that the materials collected during the investigation clearly indicate that the accused is a potential threat to society and an active participant in a systematic narcotics distribution chain operating in the Aalo and Pasighat regions. It is further submitted that the accused, upon receiving information regarding the arrest of drug consumers, deliberately destroyed incriminating evidence by disposing of a quantity of heroin and his mobile phone into the Yomgo River, with the clear intention of obstructing the investigation. 8. Based on police paper, the prosecution has also brought to the notice of this Court that the modus operandi adopted by the accused, involved the use of digital payment systems, QR codes, and coordination with intermediaries. His involvement is stated to be corroborated by multiple sources, including digital evidence, call detail records, bank transactions, witness statements, and test Page No.# 4/5 identification parade proceedings. Seizure of contraband substances during the investigation further supports the allegations. 9. It is further brought to the Court’s attention that the accused is also involved in another pending case under the POCSO Act, which is at the final stage of trial. In light of his criminal antecedents, the prosecution contends that there is a serious apprehension that, if released, the accused may attempt to influence or threaten witnesses and hamper the fair conduct of trial. 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chandrakeshwar Prasad Vs. State of Bihar, reported in (2016) 9 SCC 443, has laid down in clear terms that interest of the society is a relevant factor to be taken into account while considering the prayer for bail. For ready reference, the relevant paragraphs of the said case are extracted herein below: "10. This Court in Rajesh Ranjan Yadav @ Pappu Yadav v. CBI through its Director (2007) 1 SCC 70 balanced the fundamental right to individual liberty with the interest of the society in the following terms in paragraph 16 thereof: "We are of the opinion that while it is true that Article 21 is of great importance because it enshrines the fundamental right to individual liberty, but at the same time a balance has to be struck between the right to individual liberty and the interest of society. No right can be absolute, and reasonable restrictions can be placed on them. While it is true that one of the considerations in deciding whether to grant bail to an accused or not is whether he has been in jail for a long time, the court has also to take into consideration other facts and circumstances, such as the interest of the society." Page No.# 5/5 11. Having considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsels for both sides, and upon perusal of the case records, this Court finds that the offences alleged are grave in nature and involves serious socio-economic consequences. The alleged involvement of the accused in a systematic narcotics trafficking operation, corroborated by digital and testimonial evidence along with his deliberate attempt to destroy evidence, creates a strong apprehension that he may interfere with witnesses, if released at this stage. 12. Further, the accused’s involvement in another pending case under the POCSO Act adds to the seriousness of the situation and cannot be overlooked while considering the present bail application. 13. In view of above, this bail application is rejected. JUDGE Comparing Assistant