JUDGMENT : Sanjay Kumar Medhi, J. Heard Shri P.P. Bora, learned counsel for the petitioner, namely, Khaiminlal Touthang, who has filed this bail application under Section 483 of the BNSS , 2023 read with Section 37 of the NDPS Act praying for bail in connection with NDPS Case No. 158/2021 (arising out of Sonapur PS Case No. 585/2021)registered under Sections 21 (c)/24/29 of the NDPS Act. 2. The petitioner was arrested on 29.08.2021. 3. At the outset, it may be noted that the prayer for bail of this petitioner was rejected by this Court on three occasions earlier vide orders dated 18.04.2022 in Bail Appln./3706/2021 and order dated 20.12.2023 in Bail Appln./4379/2023 and order dated 29.01.2025 passed in Bail Appln./3773/2024. 4. Pursuant to earlier orders passed in this case, the scanned copies of the case records have been transmitted to this Court, which have been perused. 5. Shri Bora, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the present application is mainly based on the ground that the petitioner is behind the bars since the date of his arrest i.e. 29.08.2021 and therefore, further custodial detention is not necessary. He has further submitted that out of the 9 nos. of cited PWs, till date only 3 nos. of PWs have been examined. 6. By drawing the attention of this Court to the earlier orders of rejection of the prayer for bail of the petitioner in earlier cases, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that while the prayer was rejected, there was a direction to expedite the hearing and conclude the trial. However, in spite of such directions being reiterated in the orders, there is no progress at all leading to long incarceration. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that in the meantime, 4 other accused persons have been granted bail and parity would demand a similar treatment. 8. Per contra, Shri Lahkar, learned Addl. PP, Assam strenuously opposes the prayer for grant of bail of the petitioner. He submits that on 09.03.2022 the charge sheet has been submitted and the trial has begun. It is submitted that there are 9 nos. of PWs, out of which, 3 nos. of PWs have already been examined. 8. Per contra, Shri Lahkar, learned Addl. PP, Assam strenuously opposes the prayer for grant of bail of the petitioner. He submits that on 09.03.2022 the charge sheet has been submitted and the trial has begun. It is submitted that there are 9 nos. of PWs, out of which, 3 nos. of PWs have already been examined. It is further informed that the case records would reveal that for rest of the witness, summons were being issued till to a certain date, but for some reason and the other, the rest of the witnesses have not been able to be appeared. 9. With regard to the requirement of prima facie case on the basis of the materials on record, the learned APP submits that the petitioner is a named accused who was arrested on the spot of the seizure from the vehicle (Bolero) in which he was travelling with few others. It is submitted that the contraband was concealed in the dashboard and the backlight of the vehicle in a planned manner. The report of the FSL also states that the contraband is Heroin with 78.85% purity and the quantity is also huge being about 1.3 KG. She further submits that amongst the witnesses examined, there is also a seizure witness who has deposed against the petitioner. The learned APP finally submits that in consideration of a bail application, this Court is not required to go into the merits of the allegations and the decision is to be rendered based on a prima facie determination from the materials on record. 10. The learned APP, Assam submits that apart from the fact that the rule of precedents will not have a strict application in criminal jurisprudence, the facts of the cases cited are distinguishable. He has also informed that one of the accused persons who was granted bail in this case, namely, Lulun Kuki has jumped bail and is absconding. 11. The rival contentions made on behalf of the parties have been duly considered and the scanned copies of the case records have been carefully examined. 12. As mentioned above, this Court had rejected the prayer for bail on three earlier occasions and the primary ground for such rejection was that the nature and quantity of the contraband and prima facie view of the situation in which the petitioner was apprehended. 12. As mentioned above, this Court had rejected the prayer for bail on three earlier occasions and the primary ground for such rejection was that the nature and quantity of the contraband and prima facie view of the situation in which the petitioner was apprehended. The present application is, however, mainly on the ground of long incarceration coupled with lack of progress in the trial. 13. This Court vide order dated 24.09.2025 had called for a status report from the concerned Trial Court on the following two aspects- i. As to why from 23.08.2023 no further PWs have been examined. ii. Whether the other co accused have been complying with the conditions imposed while releasing them on bail. 14. The learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Kamrup (M) vide a report forwarded by a memo dated 07.10.2025 has furnished the following information. i. 4 nos. of accused have been released on bail in terms of various orders passed by the Hon’ble High Court. ii. However, out of the 4, accused Lulun Kuki has jumped bail and accordingly, on 19.02.2024, NBWA was issued against him and till date, he is found to be absconding. iii. Thereafter, vide order dated 19.05.2025 the case has been split up against the aforesaid accused and date for further PWs have been fixed. iv. The last date was 24.10.2025 for which steps have already been taken for issuance of summons. 15. Shri Bora, learned counsel for the petitioner has however submitted that after such splitting of the case, 3 dates were fixed, namely, 16.06.2025, 07.08.2025 and 24.10.2025. However, in none of the aforesaid dates, further PWs have appeared. 16. Long and unreasonable incarceration of an Undertrial would be not in sync with the Constitutional rights, more particularly, those under Articles 21 and 14. At the same time, the offence involved under the NDPS Act is a very serious one which has the propensity to destroy an entire generation. Therefore, a balance is to be struck. 17. As mentioned above, the earlier prayers for bail were rejected with the observation of an early conclusion of the trial which is not happening. In the meantime, more than 4 years have passed. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner be given the privilege of bail. 18. 17. As mentioned above, the earlier prayers for bail were rejected with the observation of an early conclusion of the trial which is not happening. In the meantime, more than 4 years have passed. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner be given the privilege of bail. 18. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner, namely, Khaiminlal Touthang, be released on bail on executing a Bail Bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- (One lakh) with two suitable solvent sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 2, Kamrup (M), Assam in connection with aforementioned case. 19. The bail granted to the petitioner shall be subject to following conditions:- (a) The petitioner shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of learned Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 2, Kamrup (M), without prior written permission from him; (b) The petitioner shall not hamper and tamper with the evidence of the case; (c) 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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer. (d) The petitioner shall surrender his passport, if any (if not already surrendered) before the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 2, Kamrup (M). (e) The petitioner shall not try to contact any of the witnesses by any mode including telephone, social media etc. (f) The petitioner shall furnish the present residential address with proof to the learned trial Court below and shall not change the said residence without prior permission of the learned trial Court. (g) The petitioner shall appear before the learned trial Court below on each and every date of appearance during trial. 20. In the aforesaid terms, this bail petition is allowed.