[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/5 vs The State Of Assam on 9 March, 2026
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010029872026
2026:GAU-AS:3437
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Bail Appln./483/2026
AMAL DAS
S/O LT NIBARAN CH DAS, R/O NARENGI, PS NOONMATI, DIST KAMRUP
(M), ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE LEARNED PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR SARFRAZ NAWAZ, MD A RAHMAN,SAMIM RAHMAN,MR.
SURAJIT DAS,MR A W AMAN
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA
ORDER
Date : 09.03.2026
1. Heard Mr. S. Nawaz, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard
Mr. P. S. Lahkar, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State
respondent.
2. This application has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Amal Das who
has been detained behind the bars since 21.03.2025 (for the last 351 days) in
Page No.# 2/5
connection with Special NDPS Case No. 172(N)/2025 under Sections 61(2)/123
read with Sections 22(c)/25/29 of the NDPS Act, 1985. The aforesaid case is
presently pending before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, No.2
cum Special Judge, Nagaon.
3. The gist of accusation in this case is that, on 28.01.2025, one Partha
Prtim Gogoi, S.I. of Police had lodged an FIR before the Officer-in-Charge of
Nagaon Police Station regarding recovery of commercial quantity of Tramadol
tablets from three accused persons who were occupant of a vehicle bearing the
Registration No. AS01 HC 1810. The name of the persons from whom the
commercial quantity of the contraband was seized are No. 1 - Ajay Sahani, No.2
- Mujibur Rahman and No. 3 Musaraf Hussain.
4. Mr. S. Nawaz, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that
though, the petitioner was apprehended on 21.03.2025 on the ground that it is
he who had supplied the contraband to the persons from whom it was
recovered, however, he submits that in the notice under Section 47 of the BNSS,
2023 as well as notice under Section 48 of the BNSS, 2023, which were served
on the petitioner as well as his wife, no accusation against the petitioner has
been made, rather it was mentioned in the point No. 3 of the said notice that
the FIR named accused disclosed name of one Anil Das from whom they had
brought psychotropic substance.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that apart from
the statement of the co-accused, there is no material to implicate the present
petitioner, though, the charge-sheet has also been laid against the petitioner
along with the other co-accused.
6. However, as there is no admissible evidence against the present
Page No.# 3/5
petitioner on record he is entitled to get bail in this case.
7. On the other hand, Mr. P. S. Lahkar, the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor has fairly submitted that apart from the statement of the co-accused
there is no other material on record against the present petitioner.
8. I have gone through the materials available on record and have
considered the submission made by the learned counsel for both sides.
9. It is no longer res integra that after judgment of the Apex Court in the
case of Toofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in (2021) 4 SCC 1
though the statement of the co-accused cannot be used as evidence against
another co-accused in a trial involving offence under NDPS Act, 1985.
10. In the instant case, apparently even after getting late during the
investigation, it was only from the statement of co-accused recorded during
investigation that the present petitioner who alleged to have supplied the
contraband to the arrested accused persons from whose possession the
contraband was recovered. However, no admissible evidence could be collected
by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation.
11. As such in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of
Toofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu (Supra), there is no admissible
evidence against the present petitioner on record to implicate him for the
offences alleged in this case.
12. In that view the embargo of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985 is also
not applicable to the present petitioner. Moreover, if we peruse the notice under
Section 47 of the BNSS, 2023, which is served upon the petitioner as well as
notice under Section 48 of the BNSS, 2023, which was served on the wife of the
petitioner, it has been mentioned that the contraband which was recovered in
Page No.# 4/5
this case was brought from one Anil Das.
13. Though, the learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly submitted that
this might be a typographical mistake, however, there is no material on record
even to come to a conclusion that the same is a typographical mistake. Under
such circumstances, the above named petitioner is entitled to get bail in this
case.
14. Accordingly, Shri Amal Das is allowed to go on bail of Rs. 50,000/-
(Rupees Fifty Thousand) only with one surety of like amount subject to the
satisfaction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, No.2, Nagaon with the
following conditions:-
i. That the petitioner shall co-operate in the trial of Special
NDPS Case No. 172(N)/2025, which is pending in the Court of
learned Additional Sessions Judge, No.2, Nagaon;
ii. That the petitioner shall appear before the Trial Court as
and when so required by the Trial Court;
iii. That the petitioner 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 disclosing such facts before the Trial Court in the trial pending
against the present petitioners;
iv. That the petitioner shall provide her contact details
including photocopies of her Aadhar Card, Driving License, PAN card,
mobile number, and other contact details before the Trial Court;
v. That the petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the
Trial Court without prior permission of the Trial Court and when such
Page No.# 5/5
leave is granted by the Trial Court, the petitioner shall submit her
leave address and contact details during such leave before the Trial
Court; and
vi. That the petitioner shall not commit any similar
offence while on bail.
15. With the above observations, this bail application is disposed of.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
