Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010287932025 2026:GAU-AS:574 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./103/2026 JAMAL HUSSAIN SON OF LATE ANOYAR UDDIN RESIDENT OF VILL- MIRJAPUR, P.S. BADARPUR, DIST. SRIBHUMI, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR H R CHOUDHURY, Z HUSSAIN,A S PRODHANI Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER 19.01.2026 1. Heard Mr. H.R. Choudhury, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Sarma, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam. 2. This application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Surakhya Page No.# 2/5 Sanhita, 2023, has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Jamal Hussain, who has been detained behind the bars since 05.12.2024 (for more than one year one month), in connection with Special NDPS Case No. 109/2023, pending before the court of the learned Sessions Judge, Karimganj, corresponding to Karimganj P.S. Case No. 627/2023 under Sections 22(c)/29 of NDPS Act, 1985. 3. It is pertinent to mention herein that before the instant bail application the petitioner had approached this court on earlier two occasions and on both occasions the prayer for bail was rejected by this court citing various reasons. 4. The gist of the accusation in this case is that on 22.08.2023, one Dibakar Gogoi, S.I of Police had lodged an F.I.R before the Officer-in-Charge of Karimganj Police Station, inter alia, alleging that on 21.08.2023 at about 12.10 PM, the Additional S.P (HQ), Karimganj received an information through reliable sources regarding illegal transportation of suspected Yaba tablets from Seralipur towards Karimganj. Accordingly, a police team was constituted and dispatched towards Naka checking point in front of M.M Home Fashions at Chargola. While the police team arrived there, they saw a person holding a black color polythene in his hand who was trying to flee away from the police team. The said person was apprehended and after following due procedure, he was searched. The said person was identified as Joynal Hoque. After due search of the said person, 2.191 kg of suspected Yaba tablets (containing methamphetamine) was recovered from his possession. 5. It is further stated in the FIR that during interrogation, Joynal Hoque revealed that the suspected Yaba tablets were peddled by him, as per the instructions of Jamal Hussain who was staying in a rented house situated at Sorapur, Rangabazar. Accordingly, the police team rushed to Sorapur, Page No.# 3/5 Rangabazar at about 3:50 PM and as showed by Joynal Hoque, searched the house of Jamal Hussain. It is further stated in the FIR that during the search operation, the petitioner Jamal Hussain was not found in the said house. However, his wife was present there. During the search, a total of 0.489 kg of suspected Yaba tablets were recovered which were kept in black colour polythene hanging on the wall of the kitchen of the said house. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the contraband was seized from the rented house where the wife of the petitioner was residing. However, he was not residing with his wife at the time of the seizure. 7. He further submits that since the last rejection of bail order by this court on 16.09.2025, there has been no progress of the trial. He further submits that in the meanwhile, the prime accused, namely, Joynal Hoque has already been granted bail by this court on 03.03.2025. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been languishing behind the bars for more than one year one month and the trial has not progressed since the date of last rejection of his bail application. Hence, he may be granted bail in this case on the ground of prolonged incarceration. He further submits that the petitioner is ready to co- operate in trial. 9. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. B. Sarma has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner at this stage. 10. He submits that in earlier two bail rejection order of the petitioner, passed by this court, the grounds taken in the present bail application were Page No.# 4/5 duly considered and the application for bail were rejected on merit finding sufficient incriminating materials against him. He submits that the petitioner has failed to plead any new ground for moving his bail application for the third time. He also submits that the co-accused namely, Joynal Hoque was granted bail mainly on the ground of prolonged incarceration as by the time when he was granted bail and he had completed more than one year six months of incarceration, whereas, the present petitioner has not even completed one year two months of incarceration. 11. He submits that the detention of the petitioner considering the nature of the offence involved in this case may not be regarded as the long enough to override the embargo of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985. 12. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides. It appears that the grounds pleaded by the petitioner in the instant bail applications are more or less same grounds which were pleaded by him in his earlier bail applications and those grounds were considered and the prayer for bail was rejected on earlier occasions. It also appears that no new grounds has been pleaded in the instant bail application by the petitioner apart from the fact that the trial has not progressed since the date of his last rejection of the bail application. Though this court is of the view that prolonged incarceration overrides the embargo of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985, however, for that the court must come to a finding that the incarceration of the petitioner is long enough to reach such a conclusion. However, in the instant case, the petitioner has not even completed one year two months of incarceration and considering the fact that the quantity of contraband seized in this case is of commercial quantity the period of detention undergone by the petitioner till date, in the considered opinion of this court cannot be regarded as long enough to give him Page No.# 5/5 the benefit of bail by overriding the embargo of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985. Moreso, as the co-accused was granted bail only after completion of one year six months of detention behind the bars. 13. For reasons mentioned hereinabove, this court finds no merit in the instant bail application. 14. Accordingly, same is dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant