Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010078722026 2026:GAU-AS:8061 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1125/2026 TAJ UDDIN ALIAS TAJUDDIN LASKAR S/O MOROM ALI, R/O SADARGAON, P.S. MURAJHAR, IN THE DIST. OF HOJAI, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM. Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P BORAH, MRS K M SAIKIA,MS S KHANAM Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA ORDER Date : 09.06.2026 Heard Mr. P. Borah, learned counsel for the accused/ applicant. Also heard Mr. B. Sharma, learned APP for the State. 2. This is an application filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 praying for granting bail to the accused/ applicant in connection with Lumding Page No.# 2/3 P.S. Case No.94/2025 under Sections 118(1)/ 121(1)/ 109(1) of BNS, 2023 R/W Section 21(C)/27 A/ 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985 registered against the accused/ applicant and two other accused persons pending in the Court of learned Special Judge, Hojai as Special (NDPS) Case No.58/2025. 3. The case relates to recovery of 284.64 gms of alleged narcotics contraband i.e., is heroin from the vehicle in which the accused/ applicant and two other persons were travelling. After receipt of the FIR police registered Lumding P.S. Case No.94/2025 under the aforementioned Sections against the 3 (three) accused persons including the accused/ applicant. 4. After completion of the investigation, police filed charge-sheet vide C.S. No.122/2025 dated 30.09.2025 against the accused persons under Sections 118(1)/ 121(1)/ 109(1) of the BNS, 2023 R/W Section 21(c)/27A/29 of the NDPS Act, 1985. The accused/ applicant has approached this Court on an earlier occasion and filed bail application which was registered as Bail Appln./3571/2025 which was rejected by this Court vide order dated 17.02.2026 with the following observations:- “This Court did not find any infirmity with the service of notices under section 47 and 48 of the BNSS while arresting the Accused Applicant. Materials available before this Court, prima facie do not make out any case of recovery of the bag containing the suspected “Heroin” from a different place than the alleged vehicle involved. The variance of weight would not make much of a difference as both the weights go on to make the total weight more than commercial quantity. Further, the issue could be adjudicated during the Trial. Lastly, as seen from the records, the Trial is proceeding in a right speed and the Trial is expected to be completed in a reasonable time as two (2) out of eight (8) witnesses have already been examined before the Trial Court. Therefore, there is no case made out for inordinate delay in Trial in the instant case.” 5. The learned counsel for the accused/ applicant submits that the Page No.# 3/3 accused/ applicant is behind the bars for more than 338 days and taking into account his long custodial detention this Court should consider his prayer for bail at this stage. 6. The TCR in the instant case is received and the same is perused by this Court. 7. Mr. B. Sharma, learned APP for the State submits that the trial is going on a reasonable speed and already 5 (five) out of 8 (eight) witnesses have been examined. Therefore, he submits that at this stage the accused/ applicant should not be granted bail by this Court. This Court after hearing the parties as well as taking into account the materials brought before this Court is of the opinion that the trial is proceeding in the right direction and in a reasonable speed. It is seen that the charges were framed on 10.12.2025 and within the last 5 (five) months or so already 5 (five) witnesses have been examined. Taking into account the offence involved and quantity of narcotics recovered as well as status of the trial, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the accused/ applicant at this stage. 8. Accordingly, the instant bail application is rejected and disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant