Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010200512026 2026:GAU-AS:14339 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2722/2026 HANIF ALI S/O MOJID ALI ALIAS ABDUL MOZID, R/O VILL UJIRARCHAR, PS ALOPATICHAR, DSIT BARPETA, ASSAM, PIN 781308 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. SANU HUSSAIN, MR K THAKUR Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER 25.09.2026 Heard Mr. S. Hussain, learned counsel for the accused and Mr. B. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. 2. This application under Section 483 of the BNSS, is preferred by the accused, namely, Hanif Ali, who has been languishing in jail hazot since 17.03.2026, in connection with Special NDPS Case No. 35/2026, arising out of Alopatichar PS Case No. 17/2026, under Section 20(b)(ii)(c) of the NDPS Act, for granting bail. 3. It is to be noted here that the aforementioned case has been registered on Page No.# 2/4 the basis of one FIR lodged by SI Ujjal Pegu of Alopatichar Police Station, on 16.03.2026. 4. The essence of allegation in the FIR is that acting on a tip-off, the informant along with police staff conducted a search in the house premise of Hanif Ali and recovered huge quantity of Ganja in three plastic boxes, weighing 31.965 kgs. 5. Mr. Hussain, learned counsel for the accused, submits that the accused was arrested on 16.03.2026 and since then he has been languishing in jail hazot for more than six months. Mr. Hussain further submits that after completion of investigation, charge sheet has been submitted against the accused and now, the trial is going on and till date, out of eight cited witnesses in the charge-sheet, five witnesses have been examined. Mr. Hussain also submits that from a bare perusal of the evidence of the witnesses, it cannot be said that no prima-facie case is made out. 5.1. Mr. Hussain also submits that the accused was arrested on 16.03.2026 and produced before the Magistrate only on 18.03.2026, which is beyond the 24 hours and under such circumstances, it is contended to allow the petition. 6. Per-contra, Mr. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent, submits that in the case in hand, trial is about to complete and out of 8 witnesses, cited in the charge-sheet, 5 witnesses have already been examined. Mr. Sarma further submits that the accused had filed one application for bail before the learned trial court on 25.08.2026 and having got his bail application, No. 2491/2026, decided on merit, now he cannot agitate the ground of his non- production within 24 hours before this Court, in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Meghalaya vs. Sonam Raghuvanshi @ Bitti @ Bittu, reported in Criminal Appeal No. …………../2026, arising out of SLP (Crl) No. 11944/2026. Under such circumstances, Mr. Sarma has Page No.# 3/4 contended to dismiss this petition. 7. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties, this Court has carefully gone through the petition as well as the documents placed on record and also perused the scanned copy of the record received from the learned trial court. 8. It appears that the trial is at the verge of completion, as there remains to examine only three witnesses. Further, a bare perusal of the evidence of the witnesses examined so far, it cannot be said that no prima-facie case against the accused is made out. 9. Since the trial is at the fag-end and it will be completed soon, this Court is of the view that if the accused is enlarged on bail at this stage, it will cause delay in disposal of the case. 10. Though the learned counsel for the accused has taken a plea that the accused was not produced before the Magistrate within 24 hours of his apprehension, yet said plea was not taken at the earlier point of time, while he preferred one bail application before the learned trial court on 25.08.2026. Further there is no material to suggest that the accused was apprehended at the time of seizure of the contraband substance, which was done at 11:20 pm of 16.03.2026, while his arrest was shown on 17.03.2026, in the forwarding report. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the said plea cannot be accepted. 11. Further, the contraband substance recovered from the possession of the accused is of commercial quantity and as such, there is a requirement of satisfying the twin conditions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act and this Court, from the materials available on the record and also from the submission of the accused, is unable to derive satisfaction of such compliance. 12. Accordingly, this petition stands dismissed. Page No.# 4/4 13. However, the learned trial court is requested to expedite the trial and conclude the same as soon as practicable. 14. Liberty is granted to the accused to raise the issue before the learned trial court at the time of argument. JUDGE Comparing Assistant