Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010086982026 2026:GAU-AS:9239 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1152/2026 SAMIR UDDIN KHAN ALIAS TARA KHAN S/O LT SIRAJ UDDIN KHAN, R/O WARD NO 10, BIDYAPARA, PS DHUBRI, DIST DHUBRI, ASSAM, PIN 783301 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. SANU HUSSAIN, MS P BARMAN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, B E F O R E HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA ORDER 25.06.2026 Heard Mr. Sanu Hussain, learned counsel appearing for the accused/applicant. Also heard Mr. P.S. Lahkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. Page No.# 2/5 2. This is an application filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 for granting bail to the accused/applicant who was arrested on dated 01.07.2025 in connection with Special Case No. 228/2025 arising out Dhubri P.S. Case No. 300/2025 under Section 22(c) of the ND&PS Act pending before the learned Court of Special Judge, Dhubri. 3. The allegation in the FIR against the accused/applicant is that the following contraband materials (1) Total 232 nos. of Pyeevon Spas Plus capsules, Batch No. PYECLO 55, MFG.04/2025, Exp.03/2026, Total weight with strip: 102 gm. (2) Total 252 nos. of Pyeevon Spas Plus capsules, Batch No. PYECLO 27, MFG.02/2025, EXP.01/2027, Total weight with strip: 209 gm were recovered from the possession of the accused/applicant on 01.07.2025. Accordingly, the aforesaid case was filed against the accused/applicant. 4. The accused/applicant had approached this Court on an earlier occasion also by filing a bail application i.e., Bail Application No. 3128/2025 which was after consideration of the TCR rejected by the Order dated 14.04.2025. In the instant case, it is seen that required materials have been already annexed in the bail application. The learned Page No.# 3/5 counsel appearing for the accused/applicant submits that he has been behind bars for 359 days and only 3 witnesses have been examined till date. He submits that since the trial will require long time for its completion and taking into account his long detention, he should be allowed to go on bail. 5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. P.S. Lahkar, on the other hand, opposes the prayer of bail of accused/applicant stating that the trial is going on at a reasonable speed and 3 PWs have already been examined before the learned Trial Court till date and therefore, the trial will not take much time for its completion. Therefore, he opposes the bail of the accused/applicant. 6. This Court has considered the submissions made by the learned counsel of the respective parties, has also perused the materials brought on record. It is seen that 3 witnesses have already been examined and the trial is going on in a reasonable speed. 7. In this connection, this Court refers to the case of ‘X’ Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Anr Special Leave Petition (Crl. No. 13378/2024) decided on dated 27.11.2024 by the Hon’ble Supreme Page No.# 4/5 Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as follows: “14. Ordinarily in serious offences like rape, murder, dacoity, etc., once the trial commences and the prosecution starts examining its witnesses, the Court be it the Trial Court or the High Court should loath in entertaining the bail application of the accused. 15. Over a period of time, we have noticed two things, i.e., (i) either bail is granted after the charge is framed and just before the victim is to be examined by the prosecution before the Trial Court, or (ii) bail is granted once the recording of the oral evidence of the victim is complete by looking into some discrepancies here or there in the deposition and thereby testing the credibility of the victim. 16. We are of the view that the aforesaid is not a correct practice that the Courts below should adopt. Once the trial commences, it should be allowed to reach to its final conclusion which may either result in the conviction of the accused or acquittal of the accused. The moment the High Court exercises its discretion in favour of the accused and orders release of the accused on bail by looking into the deposition of the victim, it will have its own impact on the pending trial when it comes to appreciating the oral evidence of the victim. It is only in the event if the trial gets unduly delayed and that too for no fault on the part of the accused, the Court may be justified in ordering his release on bail on the ground that right of the accused to have a speedy trial has been infringed.” Page No.# 5/5 8. Taking into account, the principle that is laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and also the facts and status of the trial in the instant case, this Court is not inclined to grant any relief to the accused/applicant at this stage. 9. In view of the above, the instant bail application is rejected. JUDGE Comparing Assistant