Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010033652026 2026:GAU-AS:3787 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./596/2026 BASIT AHMED S/O. ABDUL SOHID,R/O. AMBARI, P.S. MURAJHAR,DISTRICT HOJAI, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLICPROSECUTOR, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R MAJUMDAR, MS. J GHOSH,MR. JUNM LASKAR Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA 16.03.2026 ORDER Heard Mr. R. Mazumdar, learned counsel appearing for the accused applicant and Mr. M.P. Goswami, learned Addl. PP for the State of Assam. 2. This is an application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 praying for grant of Page No.# 2/4 regular bail to the accused applicant in connection with Special (NDPS) Case No. 46/2025 under Section 22 ©/29 of NDPS Act who was arrested on 23.05.2025. 3. The gist of the allegation as alleged in the FIR dated 22.05.2025 is that on receipt of certain reliable information, upon search, the Police recovered 38 packets of Yaba tablets of total weight of 833.80 grams from a Nano Vehicle. It was alleged that the Police had recovered the aforesaid contraband material when the accused applicant along with 2 (two) other persons were standing beside the aforesaid Nano vehicle. 4. On receipt of the aforesaid FIR, Murajhar P.S. Case No. 81/2025 was registered under the aforementioned sections. 5. It is seen that on an earlier occasion, this Court on 03.12.2025 has rejected the bail application on consideration of the materials brought before this Court as well as on perusal of the Trial Court Record. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the accused applicant submits that he is inside the jail for almost 10 (ten) months and his wife is suffering from severe stress due to the death of her 2 (minor) children as well as due to the fact that her husband has been arrested. He submits that there is no one to look after the wife of the accused applicant as he is in judicial custody and therefore, it is necessary that this Court should consider the aforesaid fact and grant bail to the accused applicant so that he can look after his wife. He submits that trial is going on and already 2 (two) witnesses out of 7 (seven) witnesses have already been examined. Therefore, he submits that he should be allowed to go on bail, Page No.# 3/4 at this stage. 7. Mr. Goswami, the learned Addl. PP, on the other hand, submits that the bail application of the accused applicant was rejected by this Court as well as his bail application before the learned Sessions Judge, Hojai was also rejected on 20.01.2026 on perusal of the materials brought before the Court. He submits that Section 37 of the NDPS is applicable to the instant case and therefore, at this stage, bail should not be granted. 8. This Court has heard the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and has also gone through the materials brought before this Court. 9. It is seen that trial is proceeding in a reasonably well with 2 (two) out of 7 (seven) witnesses have already been examined. It is also seen that though the children of the accused applicant died sometime in the month of November, 2025, and that ground was not taken earlier. 10. Taking the entire facts into account, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the accused applicant, at this stage since the offence is of serious nature and rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act is squarely applicable in the instant case. In this connection, the case of X-Appellant-vs-State of Rajasthan & Anr; reported in 2024 Supreme (SC) 1106 can be relied on, wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has specifically observed that ordinarily in serious offences like rape, murder, dacoity, etc., once the trial commences and the prosecution starts examining its witnesses, the Court be it the Trial Court or the High Court should Page No.# 4/4 be loath in entertaining the bail application of the accused applicant. 11. This Court is also of the considered opinion that, at this stage, there is no ground made out for granting of bail to the accused applicant since the trial has already been commenced. 12. In view of the aforesaid directions, the instant bail application stands rejected. JUDGE Comparing Assistant