Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/5 vs The State Of Assam on 3 November, 2025
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010222122025
2025:GAU-AS:14852
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Bail Appln./3226/2025
NAZRUL AHMED
S/O MD. NABAHAR AHMED
R/O NAGAON, P.S. BAIHATA CHARILAI,
DIST. KAMRUP, ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. C K NATH, MR. AJAY SARMA,MR. S MUNIR
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA
ORDER
03.11.2025
1. Heard Mr. S. Munir, the learned counsel for the petitioner.
Also heard Mr. K. Baishya, the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor, appearing for the State of Assam.
2. This application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Page No.# 2/5
Suraksha Sanhita(BNSS), 2023 has been filed by the petitioner,
namely, Nazrul Ahmed, who has been detained behind the
bars since 04.09.2025, in connection with Baihata Chariali P.S.
Case No. 217/2025, under Sections 21(a)/22(b)/29 of the
NDPS Act, 1985 and added Section 22(c) of the NDPS Act,
1985.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that
on an earlier occasion also, the petitioner had preferred an
application for bail which was registered as Bail Application No.
3031/2025. However, same was allowed to be withdrawn and
the said application was dismissed on withdrawal, by order
dated 19.09.2025.
4. The gist of accusation in this case is that on 23.08.2025,
one H. Kond, SI of Police of Baihata Chariali, had lodged an
FIR before the Officer-In-Charge of Baihata Chariali Police
Station, inter alia, alleging that on an information received
through reliable sources regarding peddling of drugs by one
Faridul Islam @ Boga, a search operation was conducted and
during search operation 108 numbers of Triprolidine
Hydrochloride and Codeine Phosphate Syrups were recovered
therefrom. Apart from Faridul Islam, one Riajul Ali and Md.
Faruk Ali were also arrested in connection with the said case.
5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the present
petitioner that after 12 days of lodging of the FIR, on the basis
of statement of the co-accused persons the police made a
Page No.# 3/5
search operation in the house of the present petitioner and
found 12 numbers of plastic containers containing brown
coloured powdery substance.
6. He submits that though the weight of the contraband along
with the containers was found to be 15.82 grams, however,
when the contraband was weight separately, it was found to
be only 1.37 grams.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
quantity of contraband recovered from the possession of the
present petitioner is of small quantity and, therefore, he is
entitled to get bail.
8. He further submits that there is nothing on the record to
link him with the codeine phosphate, which was recovered in
connection with this case from the possession of the other co-
accused.
9. He further submits that apart from the statement of the co-
accused, there is nothing on record to link him with the
codeine phosphate seized.
10. He further submits that in view of the judgment
of the Apex Court in the case of "Tofan Singh Vs. State of
Tamil Nadu" reported in "(2021) 4 SCC 1", the statement of
co-accused cannot be taken into consideration against an
accused of NDPS Act, 1985 unless, some other materials are
there to implicate him in the said case.
Page No.# 4/5
11. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor, Assam has submitted that the contraband
recovered from the possession from the present petitioner is of
small quantity, however, he has been implicated by the co-
accused, whose statements were recorded under Section 67 of
the NDPS Act, 1985.
12. He further submits that as in view of the
information given by the co-accused, contraband was
recovered from the possession of the present petitioner, it
clearly indicates that the present petitioner is also a peddler.
13. I have considered the submissions made by the
learned counsel for both sides and have gone through the
materials available in the Case Diary, which was produced by
the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam.
14. On perusal of the Case Diary, it appears that from
the possession of the present petitioner, only 1.37 grams of
suspected heroin was recovered. It was also appears that
though the co-accused have implicated the name of the
present petitioner in their statement, however, apart from the
statement of the co-accused, there is no other material in the
Case Diary to link the recovery of 108 numbers of codeine
phosphate cough syrup bottles from the co-accused with the
present petitioner.
15. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the
Page No.# 5/5
considered opinion that the embargo of Section 37 of the
NDPS Act, 1985 would not be applicable to the case of the
present petitioner.
16. Accordingly, the above-named petitioner is
allowed to go on bail of Rs. 30,000/-(Rupees Thirty Thousand
only) with a suitable surety of like amount, subject to the
satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, Rangia Kamrup, with
following conditions that:-
(i) the petitioner shall co-operate in
the investigation; and
(ii) the petitioner shall not directly or
indirectly make any inducement, threat or
promise to the informant or to any other
persons who may be acquainted with the facts
of the case so as to dissuade such person from
disclosing such facts before the Investigating
Officer or to any Court.
17. With the above observation, this bail application is
accordingly, disposed of.
18. Send back the Case Diary.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
