Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/3 vs The Union Of India on 24 November, 2025
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010213022025
2025:GAU-AS:15945
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Bail Appln./3115/2025
NURMAHAMMAD ALI
S/O ISMAIL ALI, R/O SONATARI, P.O. PACHIM MAJDIA, P.S. TARABARI,
DIST- BARPETA, ASSAM, PIN-781305
MOB. 84532-37308.
VERSUS
THE UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY THE LEARNED SPECIAL PP, NARCOTICS CONTROL
BUREAU)
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR A K AHMED,
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, NCB,
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS
ORDER
24.11.2025
1. Heard Mr. A. K. Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for the accused
petitioners as well as Ms. M. Deka, learned standing counsel, NCB.
2. This petition under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the
Page No.# 2/3
accused-petitioner, namely, Nurmahammad Ali praying for grant of bail in
connection with NDPS Case No.34/2022 under Sections 21(C)/29 of NDPS
Act, 1985 and corresponding to NCB Crime No. 14/2022 pending before the
learned Special Judge, Rangia, Kamrup.
3. The allegation in the FIR is about recovery of commercial quantity of
contraband in the nature of heroin from a vehicle bearing Registration No.
AS01FA4617 in which the present petitioner and another co-accused were
travelling.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contends that he has been in under
trial detention for a considerable period and though trial has proceeded but only
five witnesses have been examined out of the listed 13 witnesses. It is submitted
that he shall abide by any conditions imposed in granting bail.
5. Considering the fact that the penal provision of NDPS Act pertaining to
commercial quantity is involved [Section 21(c) of NDPS Act], therefore, the
applicability or otherwise of the provision of Section 37 of the Act has to be
considered, especially when the prosecution has opposed the bail.
6. It is well settled that wherever the rigors of Section 37 of the Act is
applicable, the Court shall be able to grant bail to the accused only upon
determination on the basis of the materials that the accused is not guilty prima
facie. In this regard, the learned prosecution submits that the accused persons
were caught red handed and the seizure was also supported by the witnesses.
7. The investigation resulted in a charge-sheet and the learned court below was
also pleased to frame charges against the accused person under Section 21(c) of
the NDPS Act.
8. Learned prosecution has placed before this Court the judgment/order of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India vs Namdeo Ashruba Nakade arising out of
Page No.# 3/3
SLP(Crl.)9792/2025 and has drawn attention to paragraph 11, 12 and 13.
9. I have perused the said case laws and the said paragraphs may be
reproduced herein below:
"11. In the present case, this Court finds that though the Respondent-accused was in custody
for one year four months and charges have not been framed, yet the allegations are serious
inasmuch as not only is the recovery much in excess of the commercial 7 quantity but the
Respondent-accused allegedly got the cavities ingeniously fabricated below the trailor to
conceal the contraband.
12. Prima facie this Court is of the opinion that the Respondent-accused is involved in drug
trafficking in an organized manner. Consequently, no case for dispensing with mandatory
requirement of Section 37 of the NDPS Act is made out in the present matter. 13. Moreover,
this Court is of the view that as the accused has been charged with offences punishable with
ten to twenty years rigorous imprisonment, it cannot be said that the Respondent has been
incarcerated for an unreasonably long time."
10. Upon considering the submissions of the learned prosecution and perusing
the materials available at this stage, this Court is unable to come to the opinion
that the test of Section 37 of NDPS Act is passed in favour of the accused.
Consequently, the statutory bar on grant of bail envisaged under Section 37 of the
Act with regard to commercial quantity continues.
11. Therefore, the bail petition is hereby stands rejected at this stage.
12. However, the learned trial court requested to endeavour to expedite and
complete the remaining trial, considering the under trial detention of the accused.
13. Accordingly, this bail application stands disposed of.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
