Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010153672026 2026:GAU-AS:12234 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2088/2026 SRI TURBONG RONGHANG AND ANR S/O CHANDRA RONGHANG, R/O RONGMONJIR, P.S DIPHU, DISTRICT KARBI ANGLONG, ASSAM. 2: SRI BIDYASING INGTI S/O JAYRAM INGTI R/O KATHAR INGTI GAON BALIPATHAR P.S BOKAJAN DISTRICT KARBI ANGLONG ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE P.P, ASSAM. Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. A. MEDHI, Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/5 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS O R D E R 26.08.2026 Heard Ms. A. Medhi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P.S. Lahkar, learned Addl. P.P. for the State respondent. 2. Invoking Section 483 BNSS, the two petitioners herein, namely, Turbong Ronghang and Bidyasing Ingti seeking regular bail in connection with NDPS Case No.87/2025 pending before the learned Special Judge, Karbi Anglong, Diphu arising out of Khatkhati P.S. Case No. 58 of 2025, under section 21(C)/29 of the NDPS Act. 3. The gist of the indication in the FIR dated 06.06.2025 is about recovery of commercial quantity of psychotropic substances in the nature of SAMPEX+ capsules from the vehicle in which both these accused- petitioners were travelling. It is alleged that the total nos. of SAMPEX+ capsules seized were 6192, weighing 5.17 kgs. The registration number of the vehicle was AS-09J-3090 and its make was Tata Punch. A checking was laid on the basis of source information and thereupon, the vehicle was detained and checked resulting in the recovery of the aforementioned contraband. The petitioners were arrested on 06.06.2025 and forwarded by the Magistrate to custody on 07.06.2025. 4. The investigation of the case resulted in a charge-sheet and registration of Special NDPS Case No. 57/2025 before the Court of the Page No.# 3/5 learned Special Judge, Karbi Anglong, Diphu and on 15.10.2025, the learned trial Court framed charges against the accused petitioners under Section 22(C)/29 of the NDPS Act. In the charge-sheet submitted upon investigation, 10(ten) prosecution witnesses are listed for examination. 5. Ms. A. Medhi, learned counsel for the petitioners submit that charges have already been framed and the petitioners have undergone a significant period of detention. It is submitted that they are local persons and there is no risk of absconding. It is submitted that so far 5(five) PWs have already been examined. Another contention of the learned counsel is that at the time of arrest, the grounds were explained to them in language, which was not understood by them. 6. On the other hand, the learned Addl. P.P. submits that the accused persons were explained the grounds of arrest in the language which they understood. It is also submitted that trial has progressed sufficiently. 7. I have perused the relevant portions of the scanned TCR received from the learned trial Court. 8. The seizure document enumerates the aforementioned seizure from the vehicle, in which, the petitioners were travelling. The inventory documents lend support to the said allegations. The complainant has supported the allegations. Both the seizure witnesses one of whom is an Executive Official have supported the allegations about the seizure of the psychotropic substances from the accused-petitioners. Forensic report has also returned a positive finding for tramadol. 9. I perused the notices under Sections 47 and 48 of the BNSS. The notice under section 48 was addressed to the mothers of the petitioners Page No.# 4/5 and I find the grounds therein to be reasonable in detail. 10. As far as the notice under section 47 is concerned, the grounds of arrest are concise but it clearly indicates that they are being arrested for being found carrying suspected psychotropic substances in the nature of SAMPEX+ capsules 61928 nos. in their vehicle AS-09J-3090. Though the notice is in English, I find that both the petitioners have put their signatures in English language in clear handwriting. 11. It may be mentioned herein that the learned Addl. P.P. has also submitted on the basis of the materials that the grounds of arrest were properly explained to the petitioners in a language they understood. 12. Upon perusing the materials as indicated above, it is not possible to opine that there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioners are not guilty. In other words, the rigours of the test under Section 37 of the NDPS Act would not be passed in favour of the accused petitioners herein, thereby statutorily barring the grant of bail at this stage. 13. In such view of the matter, the instant bail petition stands rejected at this stage. It is hoped that the learned trial Court would endeavour to expeditiously complete the remaining trial. 14. The bail petition stands disposed of. 15. Nothing stated herein may be taken as opinion on the merits of the case in trial. JUDGE Page No.# 5/5 Comparing Assistant