Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010050072026 2026:GAU-AS:6158 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./963/2026 ARIFUDDIN AHMED S/O. ABDUL KUDDUS, RESIDENT OF GOTLUNG, MILAN NAGAR, P.S. TEZPUR, P.O. KALIABHOMORA, PIN 784027, IN THE DISTRICT OF SONITPUR, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM. Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M R SODIAL, MUFIDUL ISLAM,MS S Z HAYAT Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER 06.05.2026 1. Heard learned counsel Mr. M. R. Sodiyal for the petitioner Arifuddin Ahmed who has filed this application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 with prayer for bail as he is behind bars since 24.06.2025 in connection with NDPS Case No. 62/2023 arising out of Tezpur P.S. Case No. 220/2023 under Sections 21(b)/29 Page No.# 2/3 of the NDPS Act, 1985. 2. Heard Mr. B. Sarmah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent State. 3. It is also submitted that the petitioner was earlier behind bars and he was released on bail and after he was released on bail, he could not appear before the learned Trial Court as he was in a Rehab centre being addicted to drugs. 4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has raised serious objection stating that the discharge certificate of the Rehab centre marked as Annexure-10 of the petition shows that the petitioner was in the rehab for only 8 months whereas, the orders in the Trial Court Records reveal that the petitioner did not appear before the Court, continuously for 2 years when the court had to issue NBWA against the petitioner. After issuance of the NBWA, vide order dated 26.05.2025, the petitioner was arrested and produced before the Court on 24.06.2025 and since then he is behind bars. 5. It is further submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the petitioner’s conduct reveals that the case has been protracted by the petitioner. 6. Trial would have been concluded by now, but due to the fault of the petitioner, this case has been procrastinating. 7. I have considered the submission that the petitioner is willing to co-operate with the remaining part of the trial and to abide by any stringent bail conditions, if imposed upon him. 8. Considering the entire aspect of the matter, the petitioner Arifuddin Ahmed is enlarged on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs.50,000/- with 2 (two) suitable sureties, one being a Government surety to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court under the conditions that: Page No.# 3/3 (i) The petitioner shall appear on every date fixed before the Trial Court, (ii) The petitioner shall refrain from such activities with which he is alleged, and (iii) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without prior permission till completion of trial. 9. On further default by the petitioner, bail order shall automatically stand cancelled and the Court is at liberty to immediately cancel the bail granted to the petitioner. 10. In terms of the above observation, this bail application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant