Page No.# 1/5 GAHC040005002026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : BA/30/2026 Smti Anubala Brahma Daughter of Late Laben Brahma, a permanent resident of Bahadur Adarsha Gaon Village, PO and PS Majbat, Udalguri District, Assam. VERSUS The State of AP represented through the PP of AP Advocate for the Petitioner : Bomchi Taipodia, BETO RIBA Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE ORDER Date : 29.04.2026 Heard Mr. B. Taipodia, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. T. Ete, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. 2. This is an application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 praying for release of the accused person, namely, Somdon Brahma, on bail in connection with Balijan P.S. Case No. 29/2025, under Sections 20(C)/25/29 of NDPS Act, who Page No.# 2/5 has been arrested on 22.10.2025. The applicant is the mother of the accused, Somdon Brahma. 3. The case emanates from an F.I.R. lodged by SI (SG) Kigam Tara on 22.10.2025 to the effect that on the same day, at around 2000 hours, based on the information received from reliable source that one vehicle Maruti Suzuki Alto car, bearing Registration Number AR-01D-2687, was carrying suspected contraband cannabis (Ganja) from Taraso to Balijan, a police team from Balijan Police Station intercepted the said vehicle at Upper Tubung Bridge Post at about 2030 hours. Upon search, 9 (nine) plastic bags containing suspected contraband Cannabis (Ganja) were recovered from the possession of two accused persons, namely, Shri Sangaram Narzary and Shri Somdon Brahma. Upon receipt of the said F.I.R., the Officer-In-Charge, Balijan Police Station, registered a case, being Balijan P.S. Case No. 29/2025, under Sections 20(C)/25/29 of NDPS Act. 4. Mr. B. Taipodia, learned counsel for the applicant, submits that the accused is innocent and no contraband has been recovered from his conscious possession. The accused was merely an occupant of the vehicle which did not belong to him and he had no knowledge of the contraband allegedly found in the trunk. As such, the essential requirement of conscious and exclusive possession under the NDPS Act is not made out. 5. He submits that there has been non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of Sections 42, 50, 52 and 57 of the NDPS Act, which vitiates the prosecution case. More so, the charge-sheet has already been filed and the case is now fixed for evidence and therefore, the investigation stands completed. In such circumstances, further custodial detention of the accused is not necessary, particularly when there is no likelihood of tampering with evidence, all materials having been already seized by the investigating agency. Page No.# 3/5 6. He further submits that the accused has been in custody since 23.10.2025 and prolonged detention would amount to pre-trial punishment infringing his right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The accused is a permanent resident of his addressed locality and is ready to abide by any terms and conditions that may be imposed by this Court and undertakes not to misuse the liberty of bail or tamper with the evidence. Therefore, he prays that the accused be released on bail. 7. On the other hand, Mr. T. Ete, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submits that sufficient incriminating materials have been collected by the Investigating Officer against the present accused and on the basis of such prima facie materials, charge-sheet has been filed against him along with co-accused. He further submits that charges have already been framed and the case is presently at the stage of evidence. 8. He submits that mere length of detention cannot be a ground for granting bail as there remains a possibility of the accused absconding, which may delay the trial. He further submits that since the case involves commercial quantity under the NDPS Act, the rigour of Section 37 of the Act is attracted. Therefore, considering the nature and gravity of the allegations, he has opposed the prayer for bail of the accused. 9. Considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the scanned copy of the Trial Court Record. 10. The present accused, along with other co-accused, was arrested on 22.10.2025 pursuant to an F.I.R. dated 22.10.2025 alleging recovery of 9 (nine) plastic bags containing suspected contraband Cannabis (Ganja) from a Maruti Suzuki Alto car in which they were travelling from Taraso to Balijan. Accordingly, Page No.# 4/5 Balijan P.S. Case No. 29/2025, under Sections 20(C)/25/29 of NDPS Act, was registered. 11. Record reveals the prima facie involvement of the accused as the suspected contrabands have been seized from the possession of the accused and the other co-accused. Charge-sheet has been filed, charges have been framed and the trial has already commenced. The case is presently at the stage of recording of evidence of prosecution witnesses. 12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of X vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr., reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3539 has held that ordinarily in serious offences, once the trial commences and the prosecution starts examining its witnesses, the Court should be loath in entertaining the bail application of the accused. It has also observed that over a period of time, two things are noticed, i.e. (i) either the bail is granted after charge is framed and just before the victim is to be examined by the prosecution before the trial or (ii) bail is granted once the recording of the oral evidence of the victim is complete by looking into some discrepancies here or there in the deposition and thereby testing the credibility of the victim. 13. Having noticed above, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the aforesaid is not a correct practice that the Court should adopt. Once the trial commences, it should be allowed to reach to its final conclusion, which may either result in conviction of the accused or acquittal of the accused. The moment the High Court exercises its jurisdiction in favour of the accused and orders release of the accused on bail by looking into the deposition of the victim, it will have its own impact on the pending trial, when it comes to appreciating the oral evidence of the victim. It is only in the event, if the trial gets unduly delayed and that too, for no fault on the part of the accused, the Page No.# 5/5 Court may be justified in ordering his release on bail on the ground that the right of the accused to have a speedy trial has been infringed. 14. In the present case, the charge-sheet has already been filed and wherein 9 (nine) witnesses have been cited. The trial is in progress and appears to be proceeding at a proper pace. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is any undue delay in the trial. Further, the case involves commercial quantity, attracting the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The materials available on record also disclose prima facie incriminating materials against the accused. 15. Having considered above and the principle of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of X vs. State of Rajasthan (supra), this Court is not inclined to admit the accused, namely, Somdon Brahma, to bail. Accordingly, the bail application stands rejected and disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant