Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/5 vs The State Of Assam on 17 November, 2025
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010229472025
2025:GAU-AS:15518
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Bail Appln./3398/2025
MD. RAKIB ALI
S/O- LATE ABDUL MOMIN.
R/O- VILLAGE NO 2 PUBERGAON, P.S- MANKACHAR, DISTRICT -SOUTH
SALMARA MANKACHAR, ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : A W AMAN, MR SARFRAZ NAWAZ,MD A RAHMAN,SAMIM
RAHMAN,MR. SURAJIT DAS
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA
ORDER
Date : 17-11-2025
Heard Mr. S. Nawaz, learned counsel for the accused applicant and Mr. K.
K. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. This is an application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 seeking bail for
the accused petitioner namely, Md. Rakib Ali, who was arrested on 01.07.2025,
in connection with Sukchar P.S. Case No. 42/2025 under Sections 22(c)/29 of
Page No.# 2/5
the NDPS Act, 1985.
3. The gist of the case, as has been alleged, in the FIR dated 23.06.2025,
filed by one Shri Ankurjyoti Borah, SI, before the Officer-in-Charge Sukchar
Police Station that on receipt of certain secret information about alleged
transportation of large quantity of contrabands by one person namely, Md.
Noyon Miah, from Dhubri to Mankchar by ferry, the aforesaid person was
apprehended by the police team and recovered huge number of banned
psychotropic substances i.e. bottles of Codeine Phosphate and Triprolidine
Hydrochloride Syrup and Nitrazepam Tablets.
4. Accordingly, the aforesaid person was arrested and contrabands were
seized and police registered the Sukchar P.S. Case No. No. 42/2025 under
Sections 22(c)/29 of the NDPS Act, 1985.
5. During the investigation, the aforesaid accused, namely, Md. Noyon Miah,
had made a statement that he was carrying the contrabands drugs for delivery
to the accused applicant. On the basis of the aforesaid statement, the accused
applicant was arrested by the police on 01.07.2025 and since then, the accused
applicant was behind the bar.
6. The learned counsel for the accused applicant submits that the accused
applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the aforesaid Md.
Noyon Miah and the Investigating Officer has not seized any material during the
investigation from the possession of the accused applicant. He submits that the
accused applicant is falsely implicated by the co-accused in his statement
recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, which is not admissible in evidence
in a trial of the offence under NDPS Act, 1985. Therefore, he submits that only
on the basis of the statement of the co-accused under Section 67 of the NDPS
Page No.# 3/5
Act, the accused applicant could not have been arrested by the Investigating
authorities.
7. In support of his submission, the learned counsel appearing for the
accused applicant has submitted the following judicial pronouncements of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court:
i. Tofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in (2021) 4 SCC 1
ii. Narcotic Control Bureau Vs. Pallulabid Ahmed Arimutta, reported in
(2022) 12 SCC 633
iii. P. Krishna Mohan Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, reported in
(2025) SCC Online SC 1157
iv. Bharat Chaudhary Vs. Union of India, reported in (2021) 20 SCC 50
8. In view of the ratios laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the above
mentioned cases, he submits that the arrest of the accused applicant in the
instant case is not sustainable under the law.
9. On the other hand, Mr. K. K. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for
the State vehemently opposed a grant of bail to the accused applicant stating
that the contraband seized in the instant case is of commercial quantity and
therefore, the embargo of Section 37 of the NDPS Act is applicable to this case.
He further submits that the Case Diary clearly reveals involvement of the
accused applicant in the instant case and he has been clearly implicated by the
co-accused, Md. Noyon Miah, that the contraband consignment was to be
delivered to the accused applicant. However, the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor, on a query by the Court, has fairly submitted that apart from the
statement of the co-accused, there is no other material on record against the
accused applicant. Therefore, the truthfulness of the statement of the co-
Page No.# 4/5
accused could only be ascertained during the trial. In view of the aforesaid, the
learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the grant of bail to the accused
applicant.
10. This Court has gone through the Case Diary submitted before this Court
as well as perused the materials available on record.
11. It is apparent from the record that investigation in the instant case is still
going on and charge-sheet in the matter is yet to be filed. However, except the
statement of the co-accused, Md. Noyon Miah, no other evidence alleging the
accused applicant of his involvement in the aforesaid seizure of the contraband
substances could be found in the record.
12. In view of the judgments that have been relied by the learned counsel
appearing for the accused applicant in the instant case, it is a settled law that a
confessional statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, 1985 will
remain inadmissible during trial of the offence under NDPS Act, 1985. In view of
the aforesaid position, it appears that there is no admissible evidence against
the present accused applicant on record, as of now, to justify his detention and
to invoke the embargo of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985 against him.
13. In view of the above settled position of law and on perusal of the
materials brought before this Court, this Court is of the considered view that in
absence of admissible evidence on record against the accused applicant, the
arrest of the accused applicant in the instant case is not sustainable under the
law, which entitles the accused applicant to be released on bail.
14. In view of the aforesaid, prima facie, finding, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the accused applicant should be allowed to go on bail,
on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) with one
Page No.# 5/5
surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, South
Salmara, Mankachar, subject to the following conditions:
i. that the accused applicant shall cooperate in the
trial of the Case No. SKCR P.S. Case No. 42/2025
pending before the learned Special Judge, South
Salmara, Mankachar;
ii. that the accused applicant shall appear before the
Trial Court as and when required by the Trial Court;
iii. that the accused applicant shall not directly or
indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to
any person, who may be acquainted with the facts of the
case, so as to dissuade such person from disposing such
facts before the Trial Court in the trial pending against
the accused applicant;
iv. that the accused applicant shall not leave the
jurisdiction of learned Special Judge, South Salmara,
Mankachar without permission of the Trial Court and
when such leave is granted by the Trial Court, the
accused applicant shall submit his address and contact
details to the Trial Court.
15. In view of the aforesaid directions, the instant bail application is,
accordingly, disposed of as allowed.
Return the Case Diary.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
