[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Gauhati High Court
Akash Agarwala Alias Akash Agarwal vs The State Of Assam on 11 December, 2025
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010231012025
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Bail Appln./3418/2025
AKASH AGARWALA ALIAS AKASH AGARWAL
SON OF SRI BIJOY KUMAR AGARWALA,
VILLAGE- KHAIRABARI JUNGLE, VTC- NO. 1, HATIGARH TE,
P.O. HATIGARH, P.S. PANERI,
DIST. UDALGURI, ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE PP, GOVT. OF ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A M KHAN, MR T T MONI,R. ALI
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR
ORDER
11.12.2025
1. Heard Mr. A.M. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B.
Sarma, learned APP for the State of Assam.
2. The petitioner has filed this bail petition under Section 483 of the BNSS,
2023, seeking release from custody in connection with Bongaigaon GRPS Case
No. 86/2025, in which the petitioner has been detained since 22.07.2025 under
Page No.# 2/3
the provisions of Sections 20(b)/(ii)C/29 of the NDPS Act.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is
about 22 years of age and is not a named accused in the FIR dated
19.07.2025. He has submitted that three persons have been named in the said
FIR, in respect of whom certain alleged contrabands, below the commercial
quantity, were recovered from a bogie of a train. The learned counsel further
submits that the petitioner has been taken into custody by the police
authorities on 22.07.2025 only on the basis of the arrest of these three
persons. He contends that, even if the allegations of the investigating
authorities are taken at face value, none of the recoveries constitute a
commercial quantity and are only of intermediate quantity. He further submits
that a mere assumption of a conspiracy cannot justify the continued prolonged
detention of the petitioner. It is also submitted that one of the co-accused has
already been released on bail by this Court, and therefore, the investigating
authorities cannot claim that the petitioner's release would hamper or tamper
with the investigation in any manner. Reliance is also placed on the judgment
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Toofan Singh vs. State of Tamil Nadu , (2021)
4 SCC 1, wherein it was held that statements of co-accused cannot be used
against another accused to establish guilt and are inadmissible in evidence.
4. The learned APP has submitted that the investigation is still at an initial
stage, and one of the co-accused is absconding and yet to be apprehended. He
further submitted that, as per the updated case diary, all three co-accused
were arrested from the train while traveling in the same bogies, and there are
indications to show that the petitioner was involved in arranging their travel.
With regard to the co-accused who has already been released on bail, the
learned APP submitted that such bail was granted solely on the ground that the
Page No.# 3/3
person required urgent medical attention. He further submitted that the mobile
phones and other materials recovered have been sent for forensic laboratory
testing, and the results are awaited; however, the substances have been
confirmed to be ganja as per the FSL report. The learned APP also submitted
that the petitioner has not relied upon or argued provisions under Section 37 of
the NDPS Act, and therefore, the bail petition does not deserve consideration
at this stage, as the investigation is ongoing. It is apprehended that the
petitioner was allegedly involved in arranging logistics for transporting the
contraband substances, and it is further suspected that investigations may
reveal the petitioner's involvement in financing or facilitating the trade of such
contraband.
5. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the
parties and have perused the materials placed before us. Although the learned
counsel for the petitioner has requested that the matter be kept pending
awaiting the final FSL report, this Court is of the view that, at the present
stage, which reflects only the initial phase of the investigation, and keeping in
mind the fact that there are sufficient materials against the petitioner, this case
is not fit for the grant of regular bail at this stage.
6. Accordingly, the bail petition is rejected at this stage. This shall not prevent
the petitioner from approaching the appropriate forum again with a prayer for
bail after the investigation has progressed to a certain extent. The learned APP
is directed to return the case diary to the investigating authority.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
