Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010279902025 2026:GAU-AS:2316 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./119/2026 FAIZUR RAHMAN S/O AKRAM HUSSAIN, R/O VILL BADLAPATHAR, PS NAGARBERA, DIST KAMRUP, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : DR. B N GOGOI, S ISLAM Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER Date : 13-02-2026 Heard learned counsel Dr. B.N. Gogoi for the petitioner, Faizur Rahman, who has filed this application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS for short) with prayer for bail as he is behind bars since 12.12.2024 in connection with Special (NDPS) Case No. 13/2025 arising out of Lakhipur Police Station Case No. 285/2024 under Sections 22(c)/29 of the Page No.# 2/4 Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act for short). 2. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he has been languishing in jail for more than 1 (One) year and he is highly aggrieved as the prosecution as well as the learned Court had procrastinated the case. 3. The petitioner is booked under Section 22(c)/29 of the NDPS Act in connection with Special (NDPS) Case No. 13/2025. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the prime accused has escaped and he is absconding. This case is pending at the stage of appearance. Due to the conduct of the prime accused, trial has not yet commenced to the disadvantage of the petitioner. 4. The petitioner has prayed for bail on the ground of prolonged incarceration. He has also submitted that grounds of arrest were not communicated to him. It is also submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the actual weight of the contraband has not been mentioned in the seizure list or in the FSL report to the prejudice of the petitioner. If the actual weight is weighed, this may turn out to be a case of Section 22(b) of the NDPS Act, instead of Section 22 (c) of the Act and the petitioner will thus be prejudiced as his right to personal liberty has been curtailed on misconstrued conception of the offence. 5. I have heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. P.S. Lakhar, who has raised serious objection stating that this Court had already dealt with the petitioner’s prayer on the ground of arrest. This Court had earlier rejected the petitioner’s prayer for bail on the ground of the arrest vide order dated 27.11.2025 in connection with Bail Application No. 3344/2025. This Court had earlier considered the petitioner’s submissions on the actual weight of the Page No.# 3/4 Tramadol contained in 7200 capsules which were seized in connection with this case. This case is not a case where the petitioner’s prayer for prolonged incarceration will be a factor to grant bail to him. 6. I have considered the submissions at the bar with circumspection. I have also scrutinized the Trial Court records and the scanned copies of the Case Diary. 7. The merits of this case are not brought to the fore. The statements of the witnesses are also not discussed as this case is pending for trial. The record reveals that the co-accused Nur Alom is absconding. 8. The FIR unfolds that the police team followed 2 (Two) miscreants proceeding on a motorcycle and carrying one cartoon. On reaching Katarihara Part 3, the miscreants entered into a house. Immediately, the police team entered into the house, but Nur Alom managed to escape. The present petitioner Faizur Rahman was arrested and one cartoon was recovered from his possession. 48 boxes containing 6 strips, having 24 capsules in each strip, was found inside the cartoon. 12 loose strips also were found separately. A total number of 7200 capsules were recovered. 9. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner was not aware of the contents of the cartoon. The prime accused is Nur Alom who managed to escape. 10. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka-versus-Sri Darshan Etc. reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1702 wherein it has been observed that :- Page No.# 4/4 20.4.6. In the present case, the High Court failed to engage with the Incriminating material collected during investigation, despite the seriousness of the offence under Section 302 IPC and the allegation of conspiracy. The mere filing of the charge-sheet, the existence of a long list of witnesses, or the possibility of delay in trial, cannot, by themselves, constitute valid reasons to dilute the gravity of the offence or to disregard the case put forth by the prosecution. As repeatedly held by this Court, such factors are not standalone grounds for the grant of bail in heinous offences involving murder. The reasoning adopted by the High Court to justify the grant of ball is, therefore, contrary to settled legal principles.” 11. It is true that the co-accused is yet to be arrested. The merits of this case are not brought to the fore. At this juncture, the petition with prayer for bail stands rejected as it appears that trial may be adversely affected if the petitioner is enlarged on bail. The Trial Court may consider splitting up this case against the present petitioner to expedite the trial. 12. Considering all aspects, petition with prayer for bail stands rejected. The petitioner may apply for bail subsequently if trial is further procrastinated by the prosecution or by the Court. JUDGE Comparing Assistant