Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010106022026 2026:GAU-AS:13741 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1432/2026 NARAYAN DEY ALIAS NARAYAN CH DEY ALIAS RAJU DEY S/O LT JIBON DEY, R/O PUB LUMDING SAMAJBARI, PS LUMDING, DIST HOJAI, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE LEARNED PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR SARFRAZ NAWAZ, R MALI,MD A RAHMAN,MR A W AMAN,MR. SURAJIT DAS Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER 16.09.2026 Heard Mr. S. Nawaz, learned counsel for the accused and also heard Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam, appearing for the State respondent. 2. This bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 is preferred by accused, namely, Narayan Dey @ Narayan Ch. Dey @ Raju Page No.# 2/3 Dey, who has been languishing in jail hazot since 01.04.2026, in connection with Special NDPS Case No.39/2026, under Sections 20(b)(ii)(B)/27A/29 of the NDPS Act, for grant of bail. 3. It is to be noted here that the aforementioned case has been registered on the basis of one FIR lodged by WSI Rumi Thakuria, Lumding P.S., on 01.04.2026. The allegation against the present accused in the FIR dated 01.04.2026 is that on the basis of statement of co-accused, namely, Sujit Das @ Choton, who was apprehended by local residents of Lumding on 31.03.2026 and handed over to police, discloses that his associate Raju Dey @ Narayan Dey of Pub Lumding Samajbari has been engaging him in long term in illicit trafficking of Ganja, storing the contraband in his house and shop and selling it in pooria packets @ Rs.50/-, Rs.100/-, Rs.200/- and Rs.500/- and accordingly, a raid was conducted in the house and shop premises of Raju Dey and 2.520 kg of suspected Ganja was recovered from the kitchen of his house and a sum of Rs.2,76,600/- was recovered from his Godrej almirah and also 0.182 kg of suspected Ganja and a TVS Jupiter Scooty were found in his shop premises and accordingly, the same were seized preparing seizure list. 4. Mr. 4. Mr. Nawaz, learned counsel for the accused submits that the accused was arrested on 01.04.2026, and since then he has been languishing in jail hazot and that in the meantime, the I.O. had completed investigation and submitted charge-sheet against the present accused, being Charge-Sheet No.49/2026, under Section 20(b)(ii)(B)/27A/29 of the NDPS Act along with Sujit Das alias Choton and he also submits that the co-accused has already been enlarged on bail by this Court, vide order dated 11.08.2026 in Bail Appln. No.1435/2026 and the learned Special Judge has already framed charge against the accused and examined three prosecution witnesses. He further submits that perusal of the said evidence of the witnesses examined by the learned Special Judge, does not disclose commission of the offence by the accused under Section 27A and accordingly, he has contended to allow the accused to go on bail. 5. Per contra, Mr. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has vehemently Page No.# 3/3 opposed the petition. He submits that having found sufficient materials against the present accused, the learned Trial Court has already framed charge and examined three witnesses and trial is going on and whether the offence under Section 27A is made out or not, is a subject matter of trial, and unless all the witnesses are examined, it cannot be said at this stage that the offence is not made out against him and therefore, he has contended to dismiss the petition. 6. Having heard the submission of learned counsel for both the parties, this Court has carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record. 7. It appears that the learned Sessions Judge has already framed charge against the present accused, under Section 20(b)(ii)(B)/27A/29 of the NDPS and has examined three witnesses. 8. Though this Court is not entitled to appreciate the evidence while considering the bail application, yet, a bare perusal of the statement of the witnesses so far examined and also the statement of the witnesses, who are yet to be examined, this Court is of the view that it would be premature to arrive at a conclusion at this stage that the offence under Section 27A is not made out. 9. Since it cannot be arrived at a conclusion that the offence under Section 27A of the NDPS Act is not made out, the accused has to satisfy the twin requirement of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. And from the record and also from the submission of learned counsel for the accused, this Court is unable to derive satisfaction that the accused is not guilty of the offence and that he will not commit any offence while on bail. 10. Accordingly, the bail application stands dismissed. Comparing Assistant Sd/- Robin Phukan JUDGE