JUDGMENT : Anjan Moni Kalita, J. Heard Mr. N. N. Upadhyaya, the learned Counsel appearing for the Accused Applicant. Also heard Mr. R. J. Barua, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State Respondent. 2. This is an application filed under section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 praying for granting of bail to the Accused Applicant in connection with Lumding P.S. Case No 94/2025 u/s 118(I)/121(I)/109(I) of BNS, 2023 read with 21(C)/27(A)/29 of the NDPS Act, 1985 registered against the Accused Applicant and two other Accused persons, pending in the Court of the Learned Special Judge, Hojai as Special (NDPS) Case No. 580/2025. 3. The prosecution’s case in brief is that on 01.08.2025 during a routine naka checking, one white couloured Maruti Swift vehicle bearing registration no. AS 01 DT 9634, coming from Lumding side towards Lanka while trying to escape the police in a very high speed, lost control and met with an accident by colliding with a traffic post on the side of the road, NH 27, Natun Basti under Lumding Police Station. Police party reached the spot but seeing police, the accused applicant with the help of an iron rod exited from the rear side of the vehicle and tried to escape. However, SI Ranjit Buragohain chased him and after running some distance, the accused applicant fell down. He tried to escape again by attacking the aforesaid Ranjit Buragohain but Ranjit Buragohain overpowered him. The accused applicant then disclosed that there are drugs consignments in the vehicle. The informant, Ranjit Buragohain immediately informed the CDSP, Lumding and rushed to the vehicle where he found the other two co-accused who had suffered minor injuries were moaning with pain. They were identified as Md. Sabir Hussain and Rashmita Begum. On search, as intimated by the Accused Applicant, a bag containing 24 nos. of soap boxes containing suspected heroin were recovered from the vehicle. Net weight of the suspected heroin was found to be 284.64 grams without the soap boxes (including the PP transparent packets). Accordingly, an FIR was lodged before the Officer-in-Charge, Lumding PS, Lumding, Hojai. The Accused Applicant and the other two co-accused persons were arrested on the same day, i.e. on 01.08.2025. 4. After receipt of the FIR, police registered Lumding PS case no. 94/2025 under the aforementioned sections against the three accused persons, including the Accused Applicant. 5. Accordingly, an FIR was lodged before the Officer-in-Charge, Lumding PS, Lumding, Hojai. The Accused Applicant and the other two co-accused persons were arrested on the same day, i.e. on 01.08.2025. 4. After receipt of the FIR, police registered Lumding PS case no. 94/2025 under the aforementioned sections against the three accused persons, including the Accused Applicant. 5. After completion of the investigation, police filed the Charge Sheet, vide Charge Sheet No. 122/25 dated 30.09.2025 against the accused persons u/s 118(I)/121(I)/109(I) of BNS, 2023 read with 21(C)/27(A)/29 of the NDPS Act, 1985. 6. Mr. N.N. Upadhyaya, the learned counsel appearing for the Accused Applicant submits that the Accused Applicant has been wrongly implicated in the instant case as he was only an occupant of the vehicle and he did not have any knowledge about carrying of any narcotics drugs by the other co-accused persons. He submits that there is violation of the mandates of the BNSS as the notices under sections 47 & 48 were not duly served on him and his family members. He further submits that the Accused Applicant has already spent 194 days in the judicial custody and two of the PWs have already been examined before the Trial Court. He submits that one of the PWs who is a seizure witness, has in fact, deposed that the bag containing the alleged Narcotic Drugs was recovered by the Police from the side of the National Highway, 27. Therefore, he submits that the Police has falsely implicated him as could be seen from the deposition of one of the witnesses made before the Trial Court. He submits that such material contradiction in the prosecution story vis-à-vis the version of the witness is fatal to the prosecution case. He further submits that though in the Inventory of the seized drugs, the net weight was mentioned as 284.64 grams without the soap boxes (including PP transparent packets), the net amount is shown to be 284.55 grams in the Charge Sheet, which is just little more than commercial quantity. He submits that such variance of weight is not acceptable in a NDPS case as the prosecution story has to be one and variance in weight is not acceptable. He submits that out of eight (8) listed PWs, only two (2) have been discussed till date. He submits that such variance of weight is not acceptable in a NDPS case as the prosecution story has to be one and variance in weight is not acceptable. He submits that out of eight (8) listed PWs, only two (2) have been discussed till date. Therefore, the completion of the Trial will take reasonably long time and the Accused Applicant has already spent 194 days in judicial custody. In view of the aforesaid, he submits the Accused Applicant should get the benefit of doubt and he should be released on bail at this stage. 7. Though the TCR received from the Trial Court, it did not contain the Depositions and Cross-examinations of the two PWs who have already been examined before the Trial Court 4.2.2026. However, the learned Counsel for the Accused Applicant has submitted copies of the Depositions of the aforesaid PWs to this Court which have been verified with the certified copies by the learned APP. The copies are kept on record. 8. In support of his submissions, the learned Counsel for the Accused Applicant has relied on the following case laws: i) Ajay Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh (Criminal Revision No. 712 of 2019), decided by a Single Bench of High Court of Madhya Pradesh; ii) Imtiyaz Sattar Shaikh Vs. the State of Maharashtra (Bail Appln no. 291/2023, decided by a Single Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay; iii) Deva Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan (Criminal Misc Bail Appln No. 7533 of 2023), decided by a Single Bench of Rajasthan High Court; iv) Rabi Prakash Vs. the State of Odissa , reported in 2023 0 Supreme (SC) 707 . 9. Per Contra, the learned APP appearing for the state submits that there is absolutely no case made out by the Accused Applicant to get bail in the instant case. He submits that there are sufficient incriminating materials against the Accused Applicant of his involvement in the crime. He submits that there are no contradictions in the prosecution story. He submits that there is no violation of sections 47 & 48 of BNSS in arrest of the Accused Applicant. He further submits that Trial is going on in a fair speed and likely to be completed in a short time. Therefore, he opposes granting of any bail to the Accused Applicant at this stage. 10. He submits that there is no violation of sections 47 & 48 of BNSS in arrest of the Accused Applicant. He further submits that Trial is going on in a fair speed and likely to be completed in a short time. Therefore, he opposes granting of any bail to the Accused Applicant at this stage. 10. This Court has perused the Case Diary and also considered the submissions made by the counsel appearing for the respective parties. 11. This Court did not find any infirmity with the service of notices under section 47 and 48 of the BNSS while arresting the Accused Applicant. Materials available before this Court, prima facie do not make out any case of recovery of the bag containing the suspected “Heroin” from a different place than the alleged vehicle involved. The variance of weight would not make much of a difference as both the weights go on to make the total weight more than commercial quantity. Further, the issue could be adjudicated during the Trial. Lastly, as seen from the records, the Trial is proceeding in a right speed and the Trial is expected to be completed in a reasonable time as two (2) out of eight (8) witnesses have already been examined before the Trial Court. Therefore, there is no case made out for inordinate delay in Trial in the instant case. 12 . As for the case laws cited by the learned Counsel appearing for the Accused Applicant, this Court does not find those cases relevant to the instant case as the facts of the aforesaid cases are distinct and different from the instant case in hand. In the case of Rabi Prakash (Supra) , the accused person was in jail for more than three and half years and though trial commenced, only one (1) out of nineteen (19) witnesses was examined at the time of consideration of the SLP by the Hon’ble Apex Court. Therefore, apparently, the facts are totally different in the case in hand. 13. In view of the aforesaid discussions and having found no merit in the bail application for release of the Accused Applicant on bail, the instant Bail Application is rejected and disposed of accordingly.