Page No.# 1/4 GAHC040008302026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : BA/49/2026 Moin Uddin resident of Karimghar, PO and PS Neelambazar, Karimganj District, Assam and presently residing at Chimpu, Itanagar, PS Chimpu, Papum Pare District, Arunachal Pradesh. VERSUS The State of AP represented by the PP of AP Advocate for the Petitioner : Gumto Kato, Lingam Ori,Komni Riba,Kirmani Lollen,Nyado Karga Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP, Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG ORDER 17.08.2026 Heard G. Kato, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Ms. T. Jini, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. The petitioner claimed to be the younger brother of the accused has filed this application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, praying for the release of the accused Jabir Hussain, who has been arrested in connection with NDPS Case No. 32/2023, registered under Sections 21(C)/27A/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 3. The accused, Jabir Hussain, was arrested on 31.03.2023 in connection with the aforesaid NDPS Case No. 32/2023 and, since then, he has been behind the bar. The earlier bail application moved before the learned Special Judge, NDPS, was rejected vide order dated 25.03.2026. 4. The petition has been filed for the release of the accused on bail, mainly on the grounds of prolonged incarceration and parity, as the co-accused in the case has been granted bail. 5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has opposed the prayer and submitted that there is sufficient material against the accused for the commission of the alleged offence and that the trial of the case is pending at the stage of evidence. 6. The Trial Court Record has been received and I have perused the same. 7. It appears that there is no dispute that 311.93 grams of suspected heroin Page No.# 3/4 was allegedly recovered from the scooty in which the accused and the co- accused were travelling. The said recovered contraband substance is of commercial quantity. Accordingly, charges under Sections 21(C) and 27A of the NDPS Act have been framed against the accused. 8. Under the given circumstances and the stage of case, this Court is conscious of the statements recorded during the investigation, wherein the accused and the co-accused are stated to have made admissions regarding the procurement and transportation of narcotic substances from a neighbouring State for sale. This Court desists from expressing any final opinion on the evidentiary value of such statements. However, considering the material collected during the investigation, coupled with the evidence already recorded, this Court is not persuaded to form the requisite satisfaction under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985. 9. Since the alleged offence involves with the recovery of commercial quantity of contraband and Section 27A of the NDPS Act is also involved, the statutory restrictions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act are attracted. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offences and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. 10. The Court has considered the submission of the learned counsel for the applicant that the accused has been in custody for a considerable period. However, in the facts of the present case, the prolonged custody of the accused cannot, by itself, override the statutory requirement under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Moreover, in the instant case, the trial has already commenced and four prosecution witnesses have already been examined. Page No.# 4/4 11. Further, on the claim of parity, this Court is of the view that the grant of bail to the co-accused does not, by itself, entitle the present accused to bail on the ground of parity, more particularly when the co-accused, who is a woman, was released on bail on health grounds. Furthermore, the accused in the present case cannot be released on parity in view of the material evidence indicating his alleged active involvement in the procurement and transportation of the alleged contraband. 12. Considering the nature of allegation and the material available on record, this court is not inclined to grant bail to the accused at this stage. 13. Accordingly, the bail application for the release of the accused is rejected. 14. However, considering that the accused has remained in custody since 31.03.2023, and the learned Trial Court, by an order dated 20.05.2026, has already directed a separate trial and expedited the examination of witnesses, the learned Trial Court shall make every endeavour to proceed with the trial expeditiously. 15. With the above observations, this bail application stands disposed of. 16. The Trial Court Record, if any, be returned. JUDGE Sabnam Mepo (SPA)