Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010049172025 2025:GAU-AS:3694 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./686/2025 SALIM KHAN S/O ABDUL HELIM, R/O HAOREBI TUREL DAM MAKHA, LILONG, P.S. LILONG, DISTRICT THOUBAL, MANIPUR VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. Y S MANNAN, MR. J ALI Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER 28.03.2025 1. Heard learned counsel Mr. Y.S. Mannan for the petitioner Salim Khan. 2. The petitioner has filed this application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 with prayer for bail as he is behind bars since 15.02.2022 in connection with NDPS Case No. 119/2022 under Sections 21(C)/29 of the NDPS Act arising Page No.# 2/3 out of Basistha P.S. Case No. 209/2022 under Section 21(C)/24/29 of the NDPS Act. 3. Heard Mr. D. P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for the respondent State. 4. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner has been behind bars for more than 3 years 1 month 12 days. All the co-accused have been granted bail. 3 out of 5 enlisted witnesses have been examined so far. The last witness was examined on 25.05.2023. The petitioner's right to personal liberty has thus been curtailed. Trial has been procrastinated by the State as well as by the Court. 5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has raised objection stating that in offences of serious nature, ground of parity cannot be considered and the length of detention is also not to be considered. The petitioner was charged for carrying 0.500 kgs of suspected heroin and bail may be rejected. 6. I have considered the submissions at the Bar with circumspection. 7. I have considered the petitioner's prayer on the ground of parity. All the co- accused have been enlarged on bail. I have also considered the submission that the last witness examined was on 25.05.2023. The petitioner was behind bars since the day he was arrested i.e. on 15.02.2022. 8. I have considered the submission that the petitioner's right to personal liberty has been curtailed due to the procrastination of the trial. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ravi Prakash Vs. The State of Orissa reported in (2023) SCC Online SC 1109, wherein it has been observed that:- "The prolonged incarceration Page No.# 3/3 generally militates against the most precious fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution, and in such a situation, the conditional liberty must override the statutory embargo written under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act." 10. In view of my foregoing discussions, the petitioner is enlarged on bail of Rs. 1 lac with two suitable sureties to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court under the conditions that:- (i) The petitioner shall co-operate with the trial, and (ii) The petitioner shall refrain from such activities with which he is alleged. 11. On breach of any of the bail conditions, the learned Trial Court may also impose additional conditions to secure the attendance of the petitioner. 12. In terms of the above observation, this bail application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant