Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010081932026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1121/2026 RAHUL ALI ALIAS KULAI S/O LATE SURAB ALI R/O BORTOL P.S. NAZIRA DIST. SIVASAGAR, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. N UDDIN, MR S K CHHETRY,MS. S SULTANA,MR. M ISLAM Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR ORDER Date : 21.05.2026 Heard Mr. N. Uddin, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner and Mr. B. Sharma, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State respondent. 2. This is an application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, petitioner namely, RAHUL ALI @ KULAI has prayed for regular bail in connection with Special NDPS Case No. 03/2026 (arising out of Nazira P.S. Case No. 33/2025) registered under Sections 21(a)/ 29 of the NDPS Act, read with Page No.# 2/4 Sections 111(2)/ 111(3) of BNS, 2023, pending in the Court of the learned Special Judge (NDPS), Sibsagar, Assam. 3. The petitioner had earlier approached this Court by preferring an anticipatory bail application being A.B. No. 3024 of 2025 in connection with the same case and on 21.01.2026, a submission had been made on behalf of the petitioner that after investigation, a charge sheet was submitted in connection with the aforesaid P.S. Case and he had not been put up as one of the accused in the said charge sheet. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that another case namely, Nazira P.S. Case No. 36 of 2025 under Sections under Sections 221(b)/ 29 of the NDPS Act had been registered naming the petitioner as an accused in the FIR dated 05.12.2025. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that by an order dated 30.01.2026; the petitioner had been granted anticipatory bail in connection with that case by the orders passed in AB No. 3012 of 2025. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the charge sheet submitted in connection with Nazira P.S. Case No. 33 of 2025 was a part charge sheet where at the last paragraph of the charge sheet it was mentioned that the remaining part of charge sheet (supplementary charge sheet) will be submitted after arresting the present accused who was evading police arrest. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this part of the charge sheet was not brought to the notice of the petitioner and therefore, on the earlier case of anticipatory bail petition, the submission was made the he was not put up in the said charge sheet. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in connection with the aforesaid P.S. Case, the petitioner has Page No.# 3/4 been arrested on 09.02.2026 and a supplementary charge sheet has also been submitted wherein petitioner herein has been now arrayed as an accused in connection with special NDPS case No. 03/2026 registered under Sections Sections 21(a)/ 29 of the NDPS Act, read with Sections 111(2)/ 111(3) of BNS, 2023. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the trial with regard to the aforesaid said case, 2 seizure witnesses have been examined and none have named the petitioner to be involved in the said incident. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has completed 101 days in custody in connection with the aforesaid case and since there is no evidence in the statements made by the said 2 witnesses up till now, the petitioner deserves the privilege of bail at this stage in connection the present case. 8. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam, Mr. B. Sarma has submitted that the original charge sheet being a part charge sheet has specifically pointed out that the arrest of the petitioner would be necessary. Therefore, the supplementary charge sheet has also been filed after the arrest of the petitioner in connection with the present case. The learned Addl. PP further submits that the provisions of law invoked against the petitioner also relates to organized crime and it is an admitted fact that the petitioner has been alleged to be involved in 3 different cases involving the NDPS Act. 9. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has further submitted that the petitioner could not avail the opportunity of cross examination of the 2 witnesses during the trial, the said PWs have been recalled by the learned trial Court to allow such opportunity to the petitioner. He has submitted that in the crucial stage when the allegation in connection with Special NDPS case No. 02 Page No.# 4/4 of 2026 is that the petitioner had supplied the contraband to the persons from whom it was seized, releasing the petitioner at this stage may not be a collusive for the trial. 10. The learned Addl. PP has also submitted that the petitioner is involved in more than one case of contravening the provisions of the NDPS Act and therefore, he may not be granted the privilege of a bail 11. We have gone through the trial court records and also heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. The 2 witnesses who have been examined in the trial the seizure witnesses were not vital witnesses on allegation on the petitioner of being involved in the supply of narcotics. Therefore, the evidence of the aforesaid two witnesses cannot be taken have an impact on the plea of the petitioner that he has not been named in the supplementary charge sheet during the seizure procedure. 12. In the facts and circumstances of the case, more particularly, the allegations of being involved in the organized crime, and that the petitioner is involved in 3 different cases, this court is of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to the privilege of bail at this stage of the trial. Hence, the prayer for bail stands rejected. 13. Accordingly, this bail application is dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant