Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010202212025 2026:GAU-AS:208 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./3003/2025 NUR HUSSAIN SK R/O CHAGOLIA PT 2, GAZISHIGANGERKUTI, PS GOLAKGANJ, DISTRICT DHUBRI, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, GOVT. OF ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. J KALITA, MR SOHAING Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER 07.01.2026 1. Heard Mr. J. Kalita, 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 Sanhita, 2023, has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Nur Hussain Sk., who has been detained behind the bars since 01.07.2024 (for the last 01 year 06 Page No.# 2/6 months and 07 days), in connection with Golakganj P.S. Case No. 157/2024, corresponding to Dhubri Special Case No. 572/2024 under Section 22(c) of NDPS Act, 1985 which is presently pending before the Court of the learned Special Judge, Dhubri. 3. The gist of accusation in this case is that on 01.07.2024 one Hirokjyoti Das, SI of police had lodged an FIR before the Officer in-Charge of Golakganj police station, inter alia, alleging that on receipt of an information through reliable sources regarding transportation of huge quantity of narcotic drugs near Dhruba parking, near Purana Dhaba, Chagolia by one Nur Hussain, one search team was constituted and a search operation was launched. During search operation, the petitioner Nur Hussain was apprehended and from him commercial quantity of Yaba tablets (6000 tablets) were recovered. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is approaching this court seeking bail for the second time. He submits that his earlier application for bail was rejected by this court on 23.07.2025 in Bail Application No. 2108/2025. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is seeking bail this time mainly on the ground that he has been detained behind the bars for more than 01 year 06 months and trial has not yet been concluded. So he submits that due to his prolonged incarceration the Fundamental Rights guaranteed to him under Article 21 of the Constitution of India has been infringed and as result it has outweigh the embargo of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985. He further submits that though till date out of 9(nine) prosecution witnesses only 6(six) prosecution witnesses have been examined, however, accept the informant, who has been examined as PW-3, nobody has deposed anything incriminating against the present petitioner in this case. Page No.# 3/6 6. He further submits that the last prosecution witness to be examined was PW-6, who was examined on 26.08.2025 and since that date, the trial has not progressed. He submits that under the aforesaid circumstances the prolonged incarceration of the petitioner has outweigh the embargo of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985. 7. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner has cited following rulings of the Apex Court:- (i) “Ankur Chaudhary Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh” reported in “2024 Supreme (SC) 906;” (ii) “Mohd Muslim @ Hussain Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)” reported in “2023 18 SCC166;” 8. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. B. Sarma has vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner on the ground that the contraband recovered from the possession of the present petitioner in this case is of commercial quantity and therefore, the embargo of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985 is applicable in this case. He further submits that mere prolonged incarceration would not entitle the petitioner to get bail in a case involving offence regarding possession of prohibited drugs under the NDPS Act, 1985. 9. He further submits that the trial of this case has progressed well and already 6(six) out of 9(nine) listed prosecution witnesses have been examined. He submits that only 3(three) witnesses are remaining to be examined and there is unlikelihood that the trial would be prolonged as only few witnesses are there to be examined. 10. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the informant Page No.# 4/6 has while deposing as PW-4 has given categorical implicating statement against the present petitioner regarding his complicity in the alleged offence and hence, he submits that it is not a case where there is no evidence against the present petition. 11. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submits that in an offence involving drug trafficking, the dispensing of mandatory requirement of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985 has not been made out by the petitioner in this case. Hence, he prays for rejection of the bail of the petitioner. 12. In support of his submissions he has cited the ruling of the Apex Court in the case of “Union of India Vs. Namdeo Ashruba Nakade” SLP (Crl) No. 9792/2025. 13. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and have gone through the materials on record, including the scanned copy of the trial court records, which were requisitioned in this case. 14. On perusal of the records, it appears that apparently the petitioner has been languishing behind the bars for last more than 01 year 06 months. 15. It also appears that though 6(six) out of total 9(nine) prosecution witnesses have already been examined, however, since 26th August 2025, the trial has not progressed. This was the date when the PW-6 was examined by the prosecution side. The Apex Court has observed in many of its rulings, including the rulings cited by the present petitioner in support of his submissions, that prolonged incarceration overrides the embargo of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985. 16. In the rulings cited by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the Apex Court declined to grant bail to the petitioner of that case on the ground Page No.# 5/6 that the incarceration undergone by the petitioner of that case was not considered to be prolonged enough to give the benefit of bail to the said petitioner. It is pertinent to notice that the petitioner of that case was behind the bars for 01 year 04 months at that point of time. 17. This court is of the considered opinion that under the facts and circumstances of a particular case if the court comes to a finding that the incarceration of the petitioner is long enough to regard the same as infringement of his fundamental rights guaranteed to him under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, same would override the embargo of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985. 18. In the instant case, it appears that the petitioner who has been detained behind the bars for the last more than 01 year 06 months, however, the trial has not progressed for the last five months, i.e. since 26.08.2025, there is no further progress in this case. Under such circumstances, this court is of the opinion that the incarceration undergone by the present petitioner in this case may be regarded as long enough to override the embargo of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985. As such, this court is of opinion that he is entitled to get bail in this case. 19. Accordingly, the above-named petitioner is allowed to go on bail of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with two sureties of like amount subject to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, Dhurbi with the following conditions: i. That the petitioner shall cooperate in the trial of Dhubri Special Case No. 572/2024, which is pending in the Court of the learned Special Judge, Dhubri; ii. That the petitioner shall appear before the trial court as and when so required Page No.# 6/6 by the trial court; iii. That the petitioner 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 trial court in the trial pending against the present petitioner; iv. That the petitioner shall provide his contact details including photocopies of his Aadhaar Card or Driving License or PAN card, mobile number, and other contact details before the trial court; v. That the petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial court without prior permission of the trial court and when such leave is granted by the trial court, the petitioner shall submit his leave address and contact details during such leave before the trial court; and vi. That the petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail. 20. With the above observation, this bail application is accordingly, disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant