Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Page No.# 1/5 GAHC020004132026 2026:GAU-NL:319
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH Case No. : Bail Appln./12/2026 HENKHOHAO LOTJEM S/O SHRI HAOKHO LOTJEM, VILLAGE KANGCHUP PATBUNG, LAMSANG, SENAPATI, MANIPUR. PRESENT ADDRESS, 4TH MILES, DIPHUPAR, RONGMEI COLONY, DIMAPUR, NAGALAND VERSUS THE STATE OF NAGALAND P.P. NAGALAND Advocate for the Petitioner : PAKINRICHAPBO, THEPFUKEDO,PAAZUSOUL ROSU Advocate for the Respondent : P.P, NAGALAND,
BEFORE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER
Advocates: For the Appellant : Mr. Pakinrichpbo For the State respondent : Mr. Veto V. Zhimomi, P.P
Date on which Judgment was reserved : NA Date of pronouncement of Judgment : 02.06.2026
Page No.# 2/5 Whether the pronouncement is of the : NA operative part of the Judgment? Whether the full Judgment has been : Yes pronounced? J U D G M E N T & O R D E R (O R A L) Heard Mr. Pakinrichapbo, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard, Mr. Veto V. Zhimomi, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State respondent. 2. The instant application under 483 of the BNSS read with Section 187 of the BNSS and Section 37 of the NDPS Act has been preferred by the petitioner/accused praying for release on default bail in connection with Special Case No. 18/2025 corresponding to Narcotic PS Case No. 08/2025 U/S 21(C)/27 A NDPS Act 1985, r/w Section 61 BNS. 3. The brief facts leading to the filing of the instant application is that the alleged accused/petitioner was arrested on 26.06.2025 on alleged recovery of contraband items and a Suo Moto FIR was registered at the Narcotic PS, PHQ, Kohima, Nagaland. Thereafter a case was registered being Narcotic PS Case No. 08/2025 vide Special Case No. 18/2025 corresponding to Narcotic PS Case No. 08/2025 U/S 21(C)/27 A NDPS Act 1985, r/w Section 61 BNS. While the petitioner was in judicial custody, he was detained under the PITNDPS Act and was forwarded to Central Jail Dimapur by the detention order dated 17.11.202. In this regard Writ Petition (Crl)/8/2026 was filed before the Division Bench on 22.04.2026 praying for revocation of detention order passed against the petitioner by the Government of Nagaland. Page No.# 3/5
4. The Hon’ble Division Bench by order dated 18.05.2026 in WP(Crl)/8/2026 quashed and set aside the detention order dated 17.11.2025 with a direction to release the detenue forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. 5.
Subsequently, the petitioner/accused moved a bail application before the Special Judge NDPS, which was registered as I.A. No. 88/2026 praying for the release of the petitioner on default bail as a total period of 336 days had lapsed since the date of his arrest. However, by an order dated 22.05.2026, the said bail application I.A./88/2026 was rejected on the ground that the period during which the accused was under preventive detention under the PITNDPS Act cannot be taken into account towards the statutory period for filing of the chargesheet and therefore, after excluding the preventive detention period, only 137 days of Judicial Custody had been completed and therefore, the prescribed statutory period had not yet expired and the accused had not acquired any indefeasible right to be released on default bail. By citing the above reasons the application was rejected. 6. In the present application the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused has taken the same ground of default bail and submits that from the date of first remand i.e, 27.06.2025 the period of 180 days had already expired on 23.12.2025. He has submitted that in a similar case i.e, Mukesh Kumar Yadav Vs. State of Nagaland, in Bail Application 01/2026 this Court had allowed a similar bail application with an observation that the investigating agency was at liberty to continue with the investigation even when the accused person was under
Page No.# 4/5 preventive detention under PITNDPS Act. It is further submitted that in the instant case the petitioner has already been in custody for 336 days as on 28.05.2026 and the Investigating Officer of the case is yet to file the chargesheet. On the above grounds and submissions, it is prayed that the petitioner/accused person may be released on bail under any terms and conditions imposed by this Court. 7. Mr.
Veto V. Zhimomi, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State respondent has fairly submitted that the instant case is covered by the order dated 12.03.2026 passed in Bail Application No.01/2026 as the facts and circumstances pertaining to the present case is the same as in the case of the petitioner in Bail Application No.01/2026. He has also submitted that the investigation period has to be counted from the date of first remand i.e, 27.06.2025 and the statutory period of 180 days shall continue to run even during the period of preventive detention. 8. This Court has considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and has perused the records and the pleadings. This Court is of the view that the period of 180 days as mandated in Section 36 (a) (4) of the NDPS Act has expired on 23.12.2025 as contended by the petitioner. There was no circumstance preventing the investigation agency from continuing with the investigation and from examining the petitioner or recording his statement with the permission of the trial court even when the accused person was under preventive detention under the PITNDPS Act. Accordingly, the instant application is allowed. 9. The accused person, Mr. Henokhao Lotjem is allowed to go on default bail subject to the condition that: -
Page No.# 5/5 i) he shall be released on executing a bail bond of Rs.30,000/- with one local surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. ii) the accused shall continue to appear before the I.O once in every 2 (two) weeks till the completion of the investigation. iii) the accused shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial court without permission. iv) the accused shall not hamper the investigation and shall not influence the witnesses in any manner. 10. With the above observation the petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant