Page No.# 1/5 GAHC040006612026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : BA/39/2026 Nangram Sankio Son of Shri Nangram Tarang, resident of Vivek Vihar, Itanagar, PO and SP Itanagar, Papum Pare District, Arunachal Pradesh. VERSUS The State of AP represented by the PP of AP Advocate for the Petitioner : Orin Modi, Ajit Bonia,Kuku Miyu,Nabam Hari,Noni Nobeng Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER Date : 03.06.2026 Heard Mr. Modi, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. D. Loyi, learned Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. This is an application filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 praying for release of the alleged accused person, namely, Md. Anitulla, who was arrested on 06.12.2025 in connection with Itanagar P.S. Case Page No.# 2/5 No.188/2025, under Section 21(d) of the NDPS Act, corresponding to the NDPS Case No.20/2026. 3. Scanned copy of the TCR has already been received. 4. It is submitted by Mr. O. Modi, learned counsel for the applicant that the accused was arrested in connection with this case on 06.12.2025 and since last 6(six) months, he is in the custody. Though, initially the case was registered under Section 21(b)/27(A)/29 of NDPS Act but subsequently, the charge is framed only under Section 21(b) of the NDPS Act against the accused person. The case has already chargesheeted and the charge has also been framed against the accused person. He further submits that the accused person is well known to the applicant and the applicant also knows the families of the accused person since 1988. The family of the accused person is residing in the State of Arunachal Pradesh since 1988, though they originally belong to the State of Bihar. The accused person is ready to abide by all the terms and conditions, if he is granted with a privilege of bail and will contest the case regularly before learned Special Judge. Accordingly, Mr. Modi, learned counsel for the applicant submits that considering the period of long incarceration, the accused person may be released on bail. 5. Mr. D. Loyi, learned Public Prosecutor submits that there are sufficient incriminating materials against the accused person and contraband was also recovered from his conscious possession. He further submits that the considering only on the period of incarceration, bail cannot be granted to the accused person wherein there is a chance of fleeing away from the trial is there, in this case, as the accused is from the State of Bihar and Page No.# 3/5 there is every possibility of absconding of the accused. And in that event, the applicant or the bailer will not be in position to produce the accused before the trial court. 6. Mr. D. Loyi, learned Public Prosecutor has also relied on a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Namdeo Ashruba Nakade, reported in (2025) SCC Online SC 3049, wherein in the paragraph-11, 13 and 14, the Hon’ble Apex Court had rejected the prayer for bail on the ground that the bailer or his brother will not be in position to produce the accused, even by undertaking, if the accused abscond. He further relied on the decision of the Kalyan Chandra Sarkar Vs. Rajesh Ranjan@ Pappu Yadav and Anr., reported in (2004) 4 Supreme 84, wherein in the paragraph-13, the Hon’ble Apex Court had observed that period of incarceration and the long list of witnesses cannot be the sole ground for granting bail to the accused, and the nature of the case and the severity of the offence is also to be considered. Mr. D. Loyi, learned Public Prosecutor submits that the present accused person is not entitled to be bail at this stage as the charges have already been framed within reasonable period and the case is at the stage of evidence. 7. Heard the submissions of both the sides and I have also perused the scanned copy of the TCR. 8. It is seen that there are sufficient materials so far collected by the I.O. during the investigation of the case and the contraband was also recovered from the conscious possession of the accused person. However, the case is chargesheeted under Section 21(b) of the NDPS Act, which is Page No.# 4/5 under the intermediate quantity, which is alleged to have been recovered from the conscious possession of the accused person. As the accused is chargesheeted under Section 21(b) of the NDPS Act, the case does not fall under the commercial quantity and hence, the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act will not attract in the present case. 9. It is seen that his earlier bail application was rejected, solely on the ground that the accused belong to the State of Bihar and possibility of absconding cannot out rightly be rejected, with that observation, the bail application of the accused was rejected by the learned trial court. However, considering the submission of Mr. Modi, learned counsel for the applicant and the statements brought in the petition, it is seen that the accused along with his family members has been staying in the State of Arunachal Pradesh since 1988 and the applicant is well known to the accused person and the accused is in the custody since last 6(six) months. 10. Further from the record, it is seen that within a reasonable period of time, the case has been chargesheeted and charges have also been framed against the accused person. Though the case is registered under intermediate quantity but it is seen that that accused person was not only consuming but was also a peddler and he was arrested along with contraband by the Investigating Officer. Therefore, considering these facts of the case, and also considering that the case is in the stage of evidence, and the views of the Hon’ble Apex Court as relied by the learned Public Prosecutor, and all other aspects of the case, this Court is of the opinion that probability of absconding of the accused, at this stage cannot be denied and in view of this, and also considering the gravity of the offence, Page No.# 5/5 it is held that bail cannot be granted only considering the period of incarceration and hence, rejected. 11. 11. The bail application stands disposed of accordingly. JUDGE Comparing Assistant