Gauhati High Court
Bail Appln./1235/2026 of HANIF ALI Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM on 11 August 2026
GAHC010091642026 2026:GAU-AS:11337 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1235/2026 HANIF ALI SON OF LATE IBRAHIM ALI RESIDENT OF MACHKHOWA MISTRIGAON, P.S. MARIANI, DIST. JORHAT, ASSAM, PIN- 785634 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM
GAHC010091642026
2026:GAU-AS:11337
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Bail Appln./1235/2026
HANIF ALI
SON OF LATE IBRAHIM ALI
RESIDENT OF MACHKHOWA MISTRIGAON, P.S. MARIANI, DIST. JORHAT, ASSAM, PIN- 785634
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM.
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S N TAMULI, C GOGOI,MS P DEKA
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
12.08.2026 Heard Mr. S. N. Tamuli, learned counsel for the accused and Mr. P. Barthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent.
2. This application, under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, read with Section 37
of the NDPS Act, 1985, is preferred by the accused, namely, Hanif Ali, who has been languishing in jail hajot since 04.12.2025, in connection with Special (NDPS) Case No. 12/2026, arising out of Mariani P.S. Case No. 168/2025, registered under Sections 22(c)/25 of the NDPS Act, 1985.
3. It is to be noted here that the aforementioned case has been registered on the basis of one FIR lodged by one S.I. Abdul Rahman, Deberpar Outpost, under Mariani P.S., on 04.12.2025. The essence of allegation against the present accused in the FIR dated 04.12.2025, is that 404 Nos. of psychotropic substance (SAMPEX + capsule), weighing 252 grams, packed in a black plastic carry bag and put in a blue colour plastic carry bag; were recovered from his house.
4. Mr. Tamuli, learned counsel for the accused submits that the accused was arrested on 04.12.2025, and since then he has been languishing in jail hajot for the last 250 days, and that charge was framed against the accused on 11.03.2026, and two witnesses have been examined so far. He also submits that the accused is ready to face the trial and will appear before the learned Trial Court on each and every date and therefore, he has contended to allow this petition.
5. Per contra, Mr. Barthakur, learned APP for the State respondent, has opposed the petition on the ground that the contraband substances, allegedly recovered from the possession of the accused is of commercial quantity and as such, he has to satisfy the twin requirement of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985; and that the accused has failed to satisfy the twin requirement. He also submits that the trial is going on and if the accused is enlarged on bail at this stage, then it will cause delay in disposal of the case and therefore, he has contended to dismiss the petition.
6. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel for both the parties, this Court has carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record and also gone through the scanned copy of the Trial Court records.
7. It appears that after completion of investigation, the I.O. has laid charge- sheet in the case. It also appears that trial is going and out of twelve witnesses, two witnesses have been examined so far.
8. It further appears that the quantity of contraband substance, recovered from the possession of the accused, is of commercial quantity and as such, the accused has to satisfy the twin requirement of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
9. From the materials placed on record and also from the submission of the learned counsel for the accused, this Court is unable to derive satisfaction that the accused has succeeded in satisfying the twin requirement of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
10. Though, Mr. Tamuli, learned counsel for the accused submits that the accused is behind the bars for about 1 year and the length of detention overrides the bar of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, yet, his submission has left his Court unimpressed. It is to be noted here that in the case of Union of India vs. Ajay Kumar Singh @ Pappu, in Criminal Appeal No.952 of 2023 [Arising out of SLP (CRL.) No. 2351 OF 2023], decided on 28 March, 2023, Hon’ble Supreme Court, while setting aside the order of granting bail by the Allahabad High Court, to the accused involving in commercial quantity of contraband substance, has held as under:- “In view of the above provisions, it is implicit that no person accused of an offence involving trade in commercial quantity of narcotics is liable to be released on bail unless the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such an offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.”
11. Indisputedly, the accused was arrested on 04.12.2025, and till date, even 1 year has not been completed and within this period, charge has been framed and two witnesses have been examined so far. And in that view of the matter, it cannot be said that there is inordinate delay on the part of the prosecution side in prosecuting the case, so as to term the delay as inordinate and thereby, infringing the right to speedy trial of the accused.
12. Under the given facts and circumstances, this Court finds no merit in this petition and accordingly, the same stands dismissed. However, the learned Trial Court is requested to expedite the trial and to complete the same as soon as practicable.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant