Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/5 vs The State Of Assam on 27 November, 2025
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010235212025
2025:GAU-AS:16173
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Bail Appln./3488/2025
SULTAN UDDIN CHOUDHURY
S/O- ASAR UDDIN CHOUDHURY, VILLAGE -CHANDIPUR PART-1, P.O.-
JANAKI BAZAR, P.S.- ALGAPUR, DISTRICT- HAILAKANDI, ASSAM., P.S
AND DISTRICT- HAILAKANDI, ASSAM.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A M BARBHUIYA, MS S R MAZARBHUIYA,MS A BEGUM
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS
ORDER
Date : 27.11.2025
Heard Mr. A.M. Barbhuiya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard
Mr. M.P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. This application filed under section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraskha
Page No.# 2/5
Sanhita, 2023, the accused petitioner namely, Sultan Uddin Choudhury,
arrested on 24.08.2025, has prayed for bail in connection with Badarpur P.S.
Case No. 153/2025 under Section 22(C)/29 of NDPS Act, 1985.
3. The case was registered pursuant to an FIR dated 24-08-2025, whereupon
an information was received in Badarpur police station about one person,
Shamim Ahmed Ikbar @ Shamim Md. Ikbal moving in that area with narcotic
drugs for the purpose of selling. That, on the basis of the information, the said
person was intercepted, upon being searched, police found 12,000 numbers of
Yabba tablets. That, subsequently, upon his interrogation at the police station,
the names of three other persons were revealed including the present petitioner
and that they had delivered narcotic drugs to the arrested person for the
purpose of selling in the Badarpur area. Information was also received that
these persons are coming in a vehicle towards Badarpur bearing registration No.
AS-01-AN-3396. That, a naka was conducted and said vehicle was intercepted
and all the three occupants therein including the present petitioner were
arrested.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been
falsely implicated and that he has been arrested solely on the basis of statement
of the initially arrested accused Shamim Md. Ikbal. Referring to the principle laid
down in the case of Toofan Singh vs. State of Tamil Nadu , reported in
(2021) 4 SCC 1 - The learned counsel submits that the same may not be
taken as sufficient to deny bail to the accused. The learned counsel also refers
to the case of State of Haryana vs. Samarth Kumar, reported in 2022
LiveLaw SC 622. The para 4 and 8 may be reproduced herein below -
"4. The High Court decided to grant pre-arrest bail to the respondents on the
only ground that no recovery was effected from the respondents and that they
Page No.# 3/5
had been implicated only on the basis of the disclosure statement of the main
accused Dinesh Kumar. Therefore, reliance was placed by the High Court in the
majority judgment of this Court in Tofan Singh vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported
in (2021) 4 SCC 1.
8. In cases of this nature, the respondents may be able to take advantage of
the decision in Tofan Singh vs. State of Tamil Nadu (supra), perhaps at the time
of arguing the regular bail application or at the time of final hearing after
conclusion of the trial."
5. The learned counsel also relied upon decision of this court rendered in
Anil Malakar vs. State of Assam in BA No. 3887/2023 and drawing
attention to para 3 may be reproduced herein below -
"3. Mr. Aman, learned counsel arguing for grant of bail submits that in view of
the determination made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State vs
Pallulabid Ahamed Arimutta & Others reported in 2022 12 SCC 633, the ratio
laid down in the case of Tofan Singh vs State of Tamil Nadu reported in (2021)
4 SCC 1, regarding value of confessional statement recorded under Section 67
of the NDPS Act, such statement shall remain inadmissible even at the stage of
consideration of the bail. Therefore, in view of such settled proposition of law,
the petitioner is entitled for grant of bail."
6. The case diary has been received and the relevant portions perused. I
have also perused the arrest memo and the notices under section 47/48 BNSS
and found them to be meeting the requisite standards.
7. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that huge quantity of
contraband has been seized in the instance case, clearly falling in the bracket of
commercial quantity and that investigation is going on. It is submitted that there
are sufficient materials against the present petitioner as well and therefore, the
Page No.# 4/5
benefit of the principles from the decisions cited at the bar by the learned
counsel for the petitioner cannot accrue to the accused herein
8. It is submitted that there are incriminating CDR analysis materials and
which implicate the present petitioner as well and that there are materials which
go beyond merely the incriminating statements of co-accused.
9. I have carefully perused the relevant portions of the case diary pointed out
by the learned prosecution. It is stated that CDRs were analyzed with regard to
the information that the three persons who were arrested in the vehicle,
including the present petitioner, coordinated with the initially arrested accused,
Shamim Md. Iqbal with regard to transaction of narcotics in that Badarpur area
and it was found that there were numerous contacts between them at the
relevant time and that their location was also found in that area.
10. On the materials of the case diary, I find that information was received
about three persons including the present petitioner coming in a vehicle and on
the basis of the said information, the three persons including the petitioner were
actually found coming in the car and they were also apprehended.
11. I have given my consideration to the matter at hand and the relevant
materials. Needless to say that, Toofan Singh (supra) settled the principle
that conviction in an NDPS case cannot be recorded solely on the basis of the
statement of the co-accused.
12. As regards the question of bail, the governing law at the moment does
not say, in my considered view, that if the only material against the accused is
the statement of a co-accused, he has to be mandatorily granted bail. However,
it cannot be denied that the said aspect of the matter can definitely be taken
into account for exercising wise judicial discretion while adjudicating a bail.
Page No.# 5/5
13. Moreover, the court would be in a better position to ascertain that aspect
(only material being the statement of the co-accused) after a complete picture
is before the Court upon completion of investigation. As investigation is an
emerging situation, therefore, before completion of investigation, it may be in
some ways premature to hold vis-a-vis section 37 of the NDPS Act, that the
petitioner is not guilty merely because the materials till then are only in the
nature of statements of co-accused.
14. In the instant case, I find that investigation has revealed significant
incriminating materials. Investigation is an active progress; I am of the
considered view that even leaving aside the incriminating statement of co-
accused, there are other materials which are adverse to the present petitioner
seeking bail.
15. In the entire facts and circumstances and in the backdrop of the above
discussion, I am of the considered view that it may not be prudent from the
point of view of effective investigation to grant bail to the accused petitioner at
this stage. I also do not find any fatal procedural infirmity, violative of any
constitutional rights to entitle the petitioner to bail. According, the instant bail
application stands rejected at this stage.
16. Return back the case diary.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
