Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010134972026 2026:GAU-AS:10405 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1793/2026 MUKTAR AHMED ALIAS MAMEDUL RAHMAN ALIAS MUKTAR RAHMAN SON OF LATE HABIBAR RAHMAN KHANDAKAR RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BIDYAPARA AFTABUDDIN LANE WARD NO 10 PS DHUBRI PO DHUBRI PIN 783324 DISTRICT DHUBRI ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. D GOGOI, MR ARINDAM BARUAH Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, B E F O R E HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA ORDER 29.07.2026 Heard Mr. D Gogoi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K Baishya, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam. This is an application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 for grant of bail Page No.# 2/3 to the petitioner, namely, Muktar Ahmed @ Mamedul Rahman @ Muktar Rahman, who was arrested on 09.08.2025, in connection with Special Case No. 250/2025 under Section 22(c) of NDPS Act, 1985. This is the second bail application in respect of the present petitioner. The previous bail application was closed and disposed of by order dated 28.01.2026 in Bail Appln. 3860/2025, as the charge-sheet had been submitted. Subsequently, the learned Trial Court rejected the bail application of the petitioner. As per the allegations reflected in the FIR, upon a search of the petitioner’s house, a commercial quantity of narcotic drugs/psychotropic substances was recovered. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been in custody since 09.08.2025 and after the charge-sheet was submitted, only three witnesses have been examined and four witnesses are still yet to be examined, and the next date fixed being 10.08.2026. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail on account of delay in the trial. It appears that the charge-sheet was submitted and cognizance thereof was taken on 08.05.2025 and charges were framed on 16.02.2026. Therefore, it Page No.# 3/3 appears that only six months have elapsed since the commencement of the trial in course of which three out of seven witnesses have already been examined. From the above, I do not find that any such delay in the trial has been occasioned, so as to infringe the constitutional rights of the petitioner. Furthermore, having regard to the material available on record, the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are squarely attracted. In view of the above, the prayer for bail stands rejected at this stage. JUDGE Comparing Assistant