Gauhati High Court
Firoz Ahmed vs The State Of Assam on 7 May, 2026
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010077282026
2026:GAU-AS:6291
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Bail Appln./1061/2026
FIROZ AHMED
S/O LT KHALIL AHMED, R/O JHAGRAPAR PT II, PS DHUBRI, DIST DHUBRI,
ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE LEARNED PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR SARFRAZ NAWAZ, A MISHRA,MD A RAHMAN,SAMIM
RAHMAN,MR. SURAJIT DAS,MR A W AMAN
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,
BEFORE
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA
ORDER
07-05-2026
Heard Mr. S. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K. K. Das,
learned Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State respondent.
2. This is an application filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, praying for
grant of bail to the accused/petitioner, namely, Firoz Ahmed in connection with
Page No.# 2/5
Special Case No. 545/2024 arising out of Gouripur P.S. Case No. 160/2024
registered under Sections 22(c)/29 of the NDPS Act.
3. Scanned copy of the TCR has already been received. Perused the same.
4. Mr. Das, learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he
has not committed any such offence, as alleged in the FIR. He further submitted
that the petitioner got arrested in connection with this case on 14.06.2024 and
as on today, he is in custody for 690 days. There was no recovery from the
conscious possession of the petitioner. He further submitted that from the date
of passing of the order dated 10.03.2026 in BA No. 487/2026 of the co-accused,
there is no such progress in the trial of the case and the last witness was
examined on 02.09.2025 and thereafter, no witness could be examined by the
prosecution.
5. He further submitted that at present the Court of learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Dhubri wherein the case is pending is lying vacant and hence
chances of examination of the other witnesses within a short period is also less
in the present case. Accordingly, he submitted that considering the long
incarceration of the present petitioner, his bail prayer may be considered. He
further submitted that one of the co-accused has already been released on bail
vide order dated 10.03.2026 passed in BA No. 487/2026 and the case of the
present petitioner is also on the same footing and hence, on the ground of
parity also the petitioner is entitled for bail.
6. Mr. Das, learned counsel further submitted that there is non-compliance of
Section 47 and 48 BNSS while issuing notice to the present petitioner as well as
his relatives, but at present he is not pressing that and he prayed to grant bail
to the petitioner only considering his long incarceration.
Page No.# 3/5
7. Mr. Das, learned APP submitted that the present petitioner is involved in
the alleged offence and the contraband were also recovered from the conscious
possession of the petitioner. He further submitted that case is of commercial
quantity and hence, rigor of Section 37 will also follow and from the materials
available in the case record and statement made by the witnesses, it cannot be
held that the petitioner was not guilty of the said offence, nor there can be any
reasonable ground to belief that he will not commit the offence, if he is enlarged
on bail, which is required as per Section 37 of the NDPS Act to consider a bail
application in case of commercial quantity.
8. Heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and I
have also perused the scanned copy of the TCR and the case diary along with
the annexures filed along with this petition.
9. It is seen that the alleged recovery of the contraband was made from the
conscious possession of the petitioner along with another. At the same time, it is
also a fact that the petitioner is behind the bar since last 690 days and only two
witnesses could be examined by prosecution till date. While entertaining a bail
application for the co-accused also it is seen that two witnesses were examined
on the date of order, i.e., on 10.03.2026 and inspite of lapse of almost two
months, there is no progress in the trial and the last witness was stated to be
examined on 02.09.2025. So considering all these aspects it can be held that
the probability of completion of the trial within a reasonable period cannot be
expected at this stage.
10. In the case of Rabi Prakash (supra), the Apex Court has granted bail to
the accused with a view that “the prolonged incarceration, generally militates
against the most precious fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the
Constitution and in such a situation, the conditional liberty must override the
Page No.# 4/5
statutory embargo created under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act .”
11. In the case of Chitta Biswas @ Subhas Vs. the State of West Bengal
[Criminal Appeal No(s). 245/2020 (@ SLP (Crl.) No. 8823/20190] also, the bail
was granted by the Apex Court considering the long period of incarceration and
also considering the fact that out of 10 (ten) numbers of witnesses, only 4
(four) witnesses were examined by the prosecution.
12. Again, in the case of Nitish Adhikary @ Bapan (supra), considering the
period of detention of 1 year 7 months, the bail was granted considering that
the prosecution could examine only one witness and also considering that the
case is at the preliminary stage of trial.
13. In the instant case also it is seen that the accused petitioner is already in
incarceration for a long period and probability of completion of the trial within a
reasonable period also cannot be expected. So without going into the other
detail merit of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner may be
released on bail considering his prolonged incarceration, which otherwise
violates the provision of Article 21 of the Constitution.
14. Further considering the case of the present petitioner on the same footing
with the co-accused, who was aired been granted bail on the point of long
incarceration, this Court is of the opinion that the ground of parity can be
applied in the present case and accordingly, I find it justified to allow the
present petitioner to go on bail.
15. Accordingly, the accused/petitioner, namely, Firoz Ahmed, be released on
bail in connection with Special Case No. 545/2024 arising out of Gouripur
P.S. Case No. 160/2024 registered under Sections 22(c)/29 of the NDPS Act, on
furnishing a bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) only, with 2 (two)
Page No.# 5/5
sureties of like amount, one surety has to be a government servant to the
satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, Dhubri, subject to the following
conditions:
(i) that the petitioner shall appear before the Court of learned Special
Judge, Dhubri, on each and every date to be fixed by the Court;
(ii) that the petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any
inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the
facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such
facts to the Court or to any police officer;
(iii) that the petitioner shall submit his Aadhar Card and PAN Card
before learned Special Judge, Dhubri; and
(iv) that the petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the learned
Special Judge, Dhubri, without prior permission.
16. In terms of above, this bail application stands disposed of.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
