Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010020272025 2025:GAU-AS:10636 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./295/2025 AMJAT ALI AND ANR SON OF LATE KUDDUS ALI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE LENGRIBORI, P.S MORIABARI, DISTRICT MORIGAON, ASSAM 2: ABDUL HASEN S/O LATE ASMAT MORAL R/O VILL-LAHARIPAM P.S. LAHARIGHAT DIST. MORIGAON ASSA VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR J C BORAH, Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER 12/08/2025 Heard Mr. J C Borah, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Bhaskar Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for the State respondent. 2. This application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the petitioners, namely, (1) Amjat Ali and (2) Abdul Hasen, seeking bail in Laharighat P.S. Case No. 152/2024 Page No.# 2/3 registered under Sections 21(C)/29/25 of NDPS Act, 1985. 3. The petitioners’ case is that they filed the bail application before the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Morigaon and the same was heard and disposed of vide order dated 20.01.2025. 4. By the said order dated 20.01.2025, the learned Court on the consideration that the period of investigation has been extended, the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Morigaon rejected the bail application of the petitioner vide order dated 22.01.2025. 5. Mr. Borah, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the said order by which the period of investigation was extended vide order dated 20.01.2025 was challenged before this Court and this Court vide order dated 29.07.2025 had set aside the order of extension being illegal. 6. As such, Mr. Borah, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner is entitled for default bail since the charge-sheet was not submitted within the time period as prescribed under the Act and the said charge-sheet was submitted on 20.02.2025, much after the mandatory period of 180 days. 7. Mr. Borah, learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that this application for bail before the High Court was filed on 30.01.2025 and the same was pending when the said extension of investigation was allowed by the Trial Court and set aside by the High Court. 8. To substantiate his argument, Mr. Borah, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on a decision passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sanjay Kumar Kedia Vs. Intelligence Officer reported in (2009) 17 SCC 631. 9. Mr. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam submits that the charge-sheet has been filed and that the instant case was fixed for framing of charge on 10.04.2025. 10. In support of his case, Mr. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam has relied on two decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2021) 2 SCC 485 and (2001) 5 SCC 453. 11. It is noticed that the main ground for rejection of the bail application of the petitioners was only that the extension of the investigation was granted by the Trial Court on 20.01.2025 for another period of 90 days. Since the said order was challenged and was set aside by this Court vide order dated 29.07.2025, the fact remains that the charge-sheet was not submitted during the mandatory period, i.e., on completion of 180 days from the date of remand of the petitioner. As such, the Page No.# 3/3 petitioners are entitled for default bail as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a numbers of decisions. 12. Accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioners, named above, be released on default bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs.30,000/- each, with 2 (two) local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge (NDPS), Morigaon with the following conditions:- (1) They shall co-operate with the investigation and shall appear before the concerned Investigating Officer as and when they are required; (2) They shall not tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses whoever is connected with the case; (3) They shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Special Judge, Morigaon without his leave. (4) In case of any violation of the aforesaid conditions, the State would be at liberty to file an application for cancellation of the bail. 13. With the above observation and direction, this bail application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant