Page No.# 1/7 GAHC040013812026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : BA/80/2026 Smti Junali Narzary Wife of Shri Sangrang Narzary, Bahadur Adarsha Gaon, Majbat, PO Hatigarh, PS Paneri, Udalguri District, Assam. VERSUS The State of AP represented by the PP of AP Advocate for the Petitioner : Mary Howrangbam, Chukhu Peter,B Tagia,M Ranka,Tajum Gameh Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE ORDER Date : 28-08-2026 Heard Mr. T. Gameh, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. T. Ete, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. This is an application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, praying for release of the accused person, namely, Sangrang Narzary, on bail in connection with NDPS Case No. 21/2026 arising out of Balijan P.S. Case No. 29/2025, registered under Sections 20(c)/25/29 of the Page No.# 2/7 Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, pending before the learned Special Judge (NDPS), Yupia, Arunachal Pradesh. 3. The case emanates from an FIR lodged by SI (SG) Kigam Tara on 22.10.2025 to the effect that on the same day, at around 2000 hours, on receipt of reliable information that one Maruti Suzuki Alto car bearing Registration No. AR-01D-2687 was carrying suspected contraband Cannabis (Ganja) from Taraso towards Balijan, a police team from Balijan Police Station intercepted the said vehicle at Upper Tubung Bridge Point at about 2030 hours. Upon search, 9 (nine) plastic bags containing suspected contraband Cannabis (Ganja) were allegedly recovered from the possession of the accused Sangrang Narzary and co-accused Somdon @ Swmdwn Brahma. Accordingly, Balijan P.S. Case No. 29/2025 was registered under Sections 20(c)/25/29 of the NDPS Act. 4. The accused was arrested on 23.10.2025 and since then he has been in judicial custody. Three bail applications filed before the learned Special Judge (NDPS), Yupia were rejected. Thereafter, B.A. No. 59/2026 was filed before this Court, which was withdrawn on 27.07.2026 with liberty to file afresh. The present application has been filed thereafter, relying upon subsequent developments and the principle of parity with the co-accused, namely, Somdon @ Swmdwn Brahma, who has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 18.08.2026 in B.A. No. 58/2026. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the charge-sheet has already been filed and charges have been framed by the learned Special Judge (NDPS), Yupia on 26.03.2026. He submits that the investigation has thus been completed and no further custodial interrogation of the accused is necessary. 6. Learned counsel further submits that the accused has undergone substantial Page No.# 3/7 incarceration and that there has been no substantial progress in the recording of prosecution evidence. He submits that the delay in the progress of the trial is not attributable to the accused and, therefore, his continued detention is not warranted. 7. Learned counsel further submits that the co-accused, Somdon @ Swmdwn Brahma, arising out of the same alleged occurrence, same vehicle and same alleged recovery, has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 18.08.2026 in B.A. No. 58/2026. He submits that the case of the present accused stands on the same footing and that he is therefore entitled to release on bail on parity. 8. Learned counsel submits that although the alleged offence involves commercial quantity and Section 37 of the NDPS Act is attracted, the grant of bail to the co-accused on the same facts and circumstances, coupled with the period of custody, completion of investigation and lack of substantial progress in the trial, are relevant circumstances for consideration of the applicant's prayer for bail. He therefore prays that the applicant be enlarged on bail. 9. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the case involves commercial quantity and, therefore, the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are attracted. He submits that the period of about ten months undergone by the accused cannot, in the facts of the present case, be treated as prolonged incarceration so as to warrant grant of bail, particularly when the charge-sheet has already been filed within the prescribed period. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submits that in a case involving commercial quantity, the period prescribed for completion of investigation under Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act is 180 days, which may, in accordance with law, be extended up to one year. He submits that the accused has remained in Page No.# 4/7 custody for about ten months and has not even completed one year of incarceration. He further submits that, in the light of Section 479 of the BNSS, 2023, the accused has also not undergone the requisite period contemplated thereunder. 10. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submits that the earlier bail applications had been rejected and that mere filing of the charge-sheet or the period of custody would not entitle the accused to bail when prima facie incriminating materials are available on record. He submits that the twin conditions under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act are required to be satisfied and that the grant of bail to the co-accused would not, by itself, entitle the present accused to bail. He therefore prays for dismissal of the present application. 11. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel appearing for the parties and have also perused the materials available on record, including the TCR placed before this Court. 12. The accused has remained in custody since 23.10.2025. The charge-sheet has been filed, charges have been framed and the trial has commenced. This Court, while considering the bail application of the co-accused, Somdon @ Swmdwn Brahma, had taken note of the fact that the trial had commenced and that the case was at the stage of recording of prosecution evidence. At that stage, the trial appeared to be proceeding at a proper pace. The subsequent proceedings, however, indicate that there has not been substantial progress in the recording of prosecution evidence. 13. The record shows that on 24.06.2026, the FSL expert had appeared virtually, but her evidence could not be recorded on that date on account of Page No.# 5/7 some stated reason. Thereafter, summons were issued to witnesses fixing 12.08.2026 for their appearance. The order dated 12.08.2026 records that the witnesses were absent and that the summons issued to them had not been returned after service. Fresh summons have been accordingly issued for their examination as prosecution witnesses, and the matter is thereafter fixed for 12.10.2026. Thus, there has been no substantial progress in the trial. 14. There is also nothing on record to indicate that the delay in the progress of the trial is attributable to the applicant. While rejecting the earlier bail application of the co-accused, Somdon @ Swmdwn Brahma, this Court had taken note of the fact that the trial was proceeding at a proper pace. The subsequent proceedings, however, indicate that the said circumstance no longer subsists in the same manner. 15. This Court is conscious of the fact that the case involves commercial quantity and that the restrictions contained in Section 37 of the NDPS Act would be attracted. The seriousness of the allegation and the statutory restrictions governing grant of bail have been kept in view. At the same time, the period of custody already undergone, the subsequent progress of the trial and the grant of bail to the co-accused on the same set of facts are relevant circumstances which cannot be overlooked. 16. The earlier bail applications were considered on the facts and circumstances then prevailing. The subsequent grant of bail to the co-accused, coupled with the lack of substantial progress in the trial and the period of custody undergone by the applicant, constitutes a material change in circumstance warranting reconsideration of the prayer for bail. The present consideration is, therefore, on account of subsequent developments and the principle of parity. Page No.# 6/7 17. Insofar as the submission relating to Section 479 of the BNSS, 2023 is concerned, the said provision deals with the maximum period for which an undertrial prisoner can be detained. The applicant has remained in custody for about ten months and has not undergone the period contemplated under the said provision. However, the present prayer for bail is not being considered solely on the basis of Section 479 of the BNSS, 2023, but having regard to the subsequent developments, the period of custody, the lack of substantial progress in the trial and, more particularly, the grant of bail to the co-accused. 18. Taking into consideration the period of custody already undergone by the applicant, the fact that the charge-sheet has been filed and charges have been framed, the fact that there has been no substantial progress in the recording of prosecution evidence and, most importantly, the fact that the co-accused Somdon @ Swmdwn Brahma, involved in the same occurrence and the same alleged recovery, has already been granted bail by this Court, this Court is of the view that there has been a material change in circumstance warranting grant of bail to the present applicant on the ground of parity. The record does not indicate that the delay in the progress of the trial is attributable to the applicant. Though the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act would be attracted, the said statutory restriction has also been kept in view while considering the applicant’s prayer for bail. Having regard to the subsequent developments, the lack of substantial progress in the trial and, more particularly, the grant of bail to the co-accused on the same set of facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view that further incarceration of the applicant is not warranted at this stage. 19. In view of the aforesaid discussions and findings, it is directed that the accused, namely, Sangrang Narzary in connection with NDPS Case No. Page No.# 7/7 21/2026 arising out of Balijan P.S. Case No. 29/2025, registered under Sections 20(c)/25/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, be released on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) with two sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge (NDPS), Yupia, Arunachal Pradesh, subject to the following conditions: (i). The accused shall appear before the learned Trial Court as and when required during the trial of the case; (ii). The accused shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person who may be acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade such person from disclosing such facts before the Investigating Authority; (iii). The accused shall provide details of his Aadhar Card, Driving License, PAN-Card and Passport, if available, to the learned Special Judge (NDPS), Yupia, Arunachal Pradesh; 20. Accordingly, this bail application stands allowed and disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant