Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010053742026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./805/2026 SRI PROBAL DAS SON OF SRI CHANDRA DAS RESIDENT OF BIBIJAN UNDER TITABOR POLICE STATION IN THE DISTRICT OF JORHAT, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B M CHOUDHURY, U SARMA,MR. U CHOUDHURY Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR ORDER 19.03.2026 Heard Mr. B.M. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K.K. Parasar, learned APP for the State. This is an application filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, praying for grant of bail to the accused/petitioner in connection with Special (NDPS) Page No.# 2/3 Case No.28/2022, registered under Sections 22(a)/29 of the NDPS Act arising out of Titabar P.S. Case No.30/2022. With regards the petitioner who has been in custody since 16.02.2026. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was originally granted bail during the trial of the case by order dated 11.03.2022 and had been on continuous bail since then. However, since the petitioner failed to appear before the learned trial court on 07.08.2024 and on a few occasions thereafter, bailable warrants of arrest were initially issued, followed by non-bailable warrants of arrest. Ultimately, the petitioner was taken into custody on 16.02.2026 and has been languishing in jail since then. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that a bail petition was preferred before the learned Special Judge, Jorhat, which was, however, rejected on 24.02.2026 on the ground that the absence of the petitioner did not inspire the confidence of the learned trial court. It is submitted that the petitioner had been regularly participating in the trial prior to 07.08.2024 and undertakes to continue to do so. It is further submitted that the petitioner is a minor child and has not been keeping well, which contributed to some delay and irregularity in appearance. However, it is assured that the petitioner will cooperate with the trial and shall not remain absent hereafter. The learned APP has submitted that the petitioner remained absent for a considerable period and there is a likelihood that he may again abstain from appearing before the Court. On that ground, the learned APP has objected to the prayer for bail. However, upon perusal of the records of the case and considering the submissions made, this Court is of the opinion that continued detention of the Page No.# 3/3 petitioner is not warranted. The petitioner is, therefore, entitled to the privilege of bail. Accordingly, it is directed that the petitioner shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 30,000/- with one surety of like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned trial court. It is made clear that in the event of the petitioner’s absence on any date of trial, the learned trial court shall be at liberty to consider the circumstances and take appropriate action, including cancellation of bail in accordance with law. This Bail Application is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant