Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010180022025 2026:GAU-AS:9160 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/933/2025 UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY SYED IMAM, INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE, GUWAHATI ZONAL UNIT, MAINAK TOWERS, CHRISTIAN BASTI, GUWAHATI 781005, DIST KAMRUP ASSAM VERSUS JANGPAO HAOKIP AND ANR S/O- SRI THANGSEI HAOKIP, R/O- TAINUMJANG, SAIKUL, PO- SEMOL, PS SAIKUL, DIST- KANGPOKPI, MANIPUR, PIN- 795145 2:SRI PAOKHOLAL HAOKIP S/O SRI DOUKHOLET HAOKIP R/O S. MOLCHAM CHURACHAHPUR P.O. AND P.S. CHURACAHPUR DIST. CHURACAHPUR MANIPUR PIN-79512 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR K BROOK, Advocate for the Respondent : , Linked Case : Bail Appln./1281/2025 JANGPAO HAOKIP AND ANR S/O- SRI THANGSEI HAOKIP R/O- TAINUMJANG SAIKUL PO- SEMOL PS SAIKUL DIST- KANGPOKPI MANIPUR PIN- 795145 Page No.# 2/6 2: SRI PAOKHOLAL HAOKIP S/O SRI DOUKHOLET HAOKIP R/O S. MOLCHAM CHURACHAHPUR P.O. AND P.S. CHURACAHPUR DIST. CHURACAHPUR MANIPUR PIN-795128 VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA REP BY SC DRI ------------ Advocate for : MS. S K NARGIS Advocate for : SC DRI appearing for THE UNION OF INDIA BEFORE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA O R D E R Date : 24.06.2026. Heard Mr. K. Brook, learned Standing Counsel, DRI appearing for the applicant. In spite of several notices, issued on the respondent Nos.1 & 2, they did not appear before the Court and from the available sources, it is also learnt that these two respondents also defaulted in appearing before the learned Trial Court i.e. the Court of learned Special Judge (NDPS), Kamrup (M) at Guwahati in Special (NDPS) Case No. 92/2024, at the stage of evidence. Finding no other alternative, the matter was heard in the absence of all the Page No.# 3/6 respondents. This is an application under Section 483(3) of BNSS, 2023 for setting aside and cancellation of the bail order dated 14.05.2025, passed in Bail Application No.1281/2025 and to send the respondents/accused persons to the jail hajot. It is submitted by Mr. Brook, the learned Standing Counsel, DRI that during the investigation, total 1118.21 gms. heroin was recovered from the conscious possession of the respondents/accused persons at the time of investigation and they were caught red handed with the said quantity of contraband substance. Thereafter, on the basis of statement of these two respondents, two other accused persons were also arrested in connection with this case and subsequently, one more accused was arrested and thus five accused persons were forwarded in connection with the case. On 29.02.2024, the charge sheet is also filed for five numbers of accused persons in connection with the case and accordingly, the Special (NDPS) Case No. 92/2024 was registered. The accused No.5 was absconding for which subsequently the case was split up and proceeded accordingly. During the trial, the coordinate Bench of this Court had allowed two of the accused persons to go in bail, namely, Fakirul Islam and Themboi @ Themboi Singson but against the said order of bail, the DRI had preferred an application for cancellation of bail before the Hon’ble Apex Court which was accordingly, allowed and the bail granted to those accused persons was accordingly cancelled. Page No.# 4/6 During the pendency of the trial, another bail application was moved for the present two respondents/accused before this Court and vide order dated 14.05.2025, the bail prayer was allowed in connection with the Bail Application No.1281/2025. Challenging the bail order dated 14.05.2025, passed in Bail Application No.1281/2025, granting bail to the present respondents, this interlocutory application has been filed for cancellation of bail against these two respondents. It is submitted by Mr. Brook, the learned Standing Counsel, DRI that while passing the bail order, this Court basically stressed on the point of non- compliance of the provision of Section 50/50 A of the CrPC and also considered that the period of long incarceration. But it was seen that there was total compliance of Section 50/50 A of the CrPC and the entire contraband substance was also recovered from the conscious possession of the accused respondents. Further, the accused respondents are acquainted with the English language in which the notices were served on them and also explained in their language. But those things were not brought before the Court at the time of passing the order granting bail to the accused respondents. Considering the nature of offence, the cancellation of the bail prayer has been made by the DRI authorities through the instant interlocutory application. Mr. Brook, the learned Standing Counsel, DRI further submitted that in the recent development, the accused respondents are not appearing before the learned Special Judge (NDPS), Kamrup (M) at Guwahati for the trial of Special (NDPS) Case No. 92/2024 and in spite of issuance of NBWA on 2/3 occasions, Page No.# 5/6 they are avoiding arrest and are not cooperating with the trial, which otherwise violates the bail conditions put to them. Accordingly, Mr. Brook submitted that the bail order passed for the present accused respondents may be set aside and cancelled and they may be remanded to judicial custody. Hearing the submissions made by learned counsel for applicant, I have also perused the case record. It is seen that vide order dated 14.05.2025, bail was granted to the present accused respondents considering the observation of the Hon’ble Apex Court passed in the case of Vihaan Kumar vs. State of Haryana reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 269 and Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav & Anr. reported in 2005 O Supreme (SC) 104, in considering the Bail Application No.1281/2025. But there are various judgments under which the bail order can be cancelled if it is found to be illegal, perverse or premised on materials which are irrelevant. But here in the instant case, the applicant ought to have move a prayer for cancellation of bail to a Superior Court and the applicant cannot challenge the bail order before the Court by which it was passed and thus, the present interlocutory application itself is not maintainable in its present form. However, from the submission made by Mr. Brook, the learned Standing Counsel, DRI it is seen that the bail granted to the present accused respondents is not in existence at present, as the NBWA had already been issued against them, due to default in appearing before the learned Special Judge. However, they are at liberty to appear before the learned Trial Court below with a fresh application for bail which may be considered in accordance with law. But at present, though the instant application for cancellation for bail is not Page No.# 6/6 maintainable before this Court, but considering the overall fact that the accused respondents have already defaulted and violated the conditions of bail order and thus, their bail order may stands vacated automatically. However, no order can be passed on the merit of the case. In view of above discussion, the present interlocutory application for cancellation of bail stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant