Page No.# 1/5 GAHC020004802026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH Case No. : Bail Appln./15/2026 AKAMU K. KIBA (BIOLOGICAL BROTHER OF THE ACCUSED), PERMANENT RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO. 94B SHOTHUMI VILLAGE, P.S. SEYOCHUNG, KIPHIRE, NAGALAND, KIPHIRE VERSUS THE STATE OF NAGALAND P.P. NAGALAND Advocate for the Petitioner : NISUKA CHISHI, M SOLO,H H KINIMI Advocate for the Respondent : P.P, NAGALAND, BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA ORDER Date : 30.07.2026 Heard Mr. Nisuka Chishi, learned counsel appearing for the accused-applicant. Also heard Mr. Tiba Phom, learned Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State of Nagaland. 2. This is an application filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, read with Section 37 of the NDPS Act, praying for release of the accused-applicant in connection with Zunheboto P.S. Case No. 18/2025, Page No.# 2/5 registered under Sections 22(c)/29 of NDPS Act, read with Section 44(a)(b) of NLTP Act. 3. An FIR was lodged on 09.09.2025 by one ASI named Hekhugha of Zunheboto Police Station before the Officer-in-Charge of Zunheboto Police Station alleging, inter alia, that on 08.09.2025 at around 12:30 hours, the Special Operation Team (SOT), while conducting a routine police check duty at MVCP near Sukhalu Village, a Fortuner vehicle bearing registration number AR-01-D-6777 was signaled to stop for checking; that the said vehicle fled towards Zunheboto and despite a pursuit by the police team, the vehicle managed to escape; that police stations were alerted and all strategic points were manned, but the suspected vehicle could not be located at that point of time; that after several hours of searching, the suspected Fortuner vehicle was finally located and recovered below Step by Step School, South Point West Colony, Zunheboto, at Kiyeho's residence; that the matter was immediately reported to the superior officers and at the same time, the same was entered vide Zbto PS GD Entry No. 06, dated 08.09.2025; that authorization for search was obtained and thereafter, a thorough search of the recovered Fortuner vehicle and Bolero vehicle was conducted and during search, one case of Kingfisher Beer was recovered from inside the Fortuner vehicle; that subsequently, on 08.09.2025 itself, a search was conducted at the House No. 94B, South Point West Colony, Zunheboto, belonging to one Kiyeho Sumi in presence of independent witnesses and during the search, 3,900 nos. of SAMPEX+capsules wrapped in black and silver plastic bags, 700 strips of Alprazolam tablets wrapped in black and silver plastic bags concealed inside a green rice sack, assorted IMFL including 363 bottles of McDowell's No.1 Rum and 200 nos. of Kingfisher Can Beer were recovered from the two-storied building of the aforesaid Kiyeho Sumi; Page No.# 3/5 that the police seized those contraband items including the assorted IMFL and the vehicles, namely, Fortuner and Bolero vehicle; that during spot interrogation, two individuals, namely, one Ninoto M. Awomi and Toshika, claimed ownership of the seized items; that both the persons were duly arrested. 4. On receipt of the FIR, police registered Zunheboto PS Case No. 18/2025, under the aforementioned sections and after due investigation, a charge-sheet was filed on 26.12.2025 before the Special Judge, NDPS, Zunheboto. 5. In the aforesaid charge-sheet dated 26.12.2025, six witnesses have been named; however, subsequently, two more witnesses have been added to the list of prosecution witnesses. The charges in the instant case have been framed on 18.02.2026 and PW-1, PW-2 and PW- 3 have been examined on 26.03.2026. PW-7 and PW-8 have examined on 29.04.2026 and PW-5 and PW-6 have been examined on 10.06.2026. 6. Scanned copy of the TCR has been received and the same is perused by this Court. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the accused-applicant submits that since the accused-applicant is already behind the bars for 326 days and most of the important PWs have already been examined before the trial court, further detention of the accused-applicant may not be required. In support of his submission, the learned counsel appearing for the accused-applicant has referred to the case of Mohd Muslim alias Hussain v. State (NCT of Delhi), reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 352. While referring to the aforesaid case, learned counsel submits that rigors of Section 37 may not be applicable in the instant case due to prolonged incarceration of the accused-applicant behind Page No.# 4/5 the bars. He further submits that the accused-applicant has been arrested only on the basis of the confessional statement which is not admissible before the trial court. In view of the aforesaid submission, he prays for release of the accused-applicant on bail. 8. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State of Nagaland submits that a huge commercial quantity of narcotic substances have been recovered, and the ownership of the same has been claimed by the accused-applicant as well as another co-accused. He further submits that since the trial is going on at a reasonably good speed, no interference of this Court is required at this stage. 9. This Court has heard the submissions made by the respective counsel appearing for the respective parties and has also perused the materials placed before this Court in the TCR. 10. It is seen that the accused-applicant was arrested on 08.09.2025; and thereafter, charge-sheet was filed on 26.12.2025 and charges were framed on 18.02.2026. Thereafter, seven PWs have already been examined before the trial court. It is seen that the trial is going on at a reasonably good speed and it is expected the trial will be concluded within a short span of time. 11. The Hon’ble Court in the case of X vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in 2024 Supreme (SC) 1106 has held as follows: - “14. Ordinarily in serious offences like rape, murder, dacoity, etc., once the trial commences and the prosecution starts examining its witnesses, the Court be it the Trial Court or the High Court should be loath in entertaining the bail application of the 15. Over a period of time, we have noticed two things, i.e., (i) either bail is granted after the charge is framed and just before the victim is to be examined by the prosecution before the trial court, or (ii) bail is granted Page No.# 5/5 once the recording of the oral evidence of the victim is complete by looking into some discrepancies here or there in the deposition and thereby testing the credibility of the victim. 16. We are of the view that the aforesaid is not a correct practice that the Courts below should adopt. Once the trial commences, it should be allowed to reach to its final conclusion which may either result in the conviction of the accused or acquittal of the accused. The moment the High Court exercises its discretion in favour of the accused and orders release of the accused on bail by looking into the deposition of the victim, it will have its own impact on the pending trial when it comes to appreciating the oral evidence of the victim. It is only in the event if the trial gets unduly delayed and that too for no fault on the part of the accused, the Court may be justified in ordering his release on bail on the ground that right of the accused to have a speedy trial has been infringed.” 12. Taking into account the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of X v. State of Rajasthan (supra) and on perusal of the TCR received, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the trial at this stage by releasing the accused-applicant on bail. 13. In view of the aforesaid, the instant bail application is rejected at this stage. Sd/- JUDGE Comparing Assistant