Saidur Hussain Barbhuiya @ Saidur ... vs The State Of Assam on 12 March, 2026

Author: Parthivjyoti Saikia

Bench: Parthivjyoti Saikia

                                                                          Page No.# 1/4

GAHC010048012026




                                                                   undefined

                              THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
   (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                                Case No. : Bail Appln./705/2026

             SAIDUR HUSSAIN BARBHUIYA @ SAIDUR RAHMAN BARBHUIYA
             S/O SOFOR UDDIN BARBHUIYA, R/ODHALCHERA, P.O. BARTOL, P.S.
             BILAIPAR, PIN 788736, HAILAKNDI, ASSAM.



             VERSUS

             THE STATE OF ASSAM
             REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM.



Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. M R SODIAL, R ALI,MS S Z HAYAT,MUFIDUL ISLAM

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,




                                        ::BEFORE ::
                   HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA


                                        O R D E R

12.03.2026

Heard Mr. M.R. Sodial, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Bhaskar Sharma, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam.

Page No.# 2/4

2. This is an application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 whereby the petitioner, namely- Saidur Hussain Barbhuiya @ Saidur Rahman Barbhuiya has prayed for releasing him on bail after he was arrested in connection with Silchar P.S. Case No.603/2025 under Sections 22(c)/25/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

3. The petitioner was driving a truck bearing Registration No.AS-23-BC 8179. The truck was loaded with gas cylinders. Apart from the driver, there was nobody in the truck. One of the cylinders of the truck was filled with 50000 numbers of Yaba tablets.

4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel of both sides.

5. In Union of India v. Mohd. Nawaz Khan , (2021) 10 SCC 100, the Supreme Court has held as under:

"19. With regard to the grant of bail for offences under the NDPS Act, in Union of India v. Shiv Shanker Kesari [Union of India v. Shiv Shanker Kesari, (2007) 7 SCC 798 :

(2007) 3 SCC (Cri) 505] this Court observed that bail may be cancelled if it has been granted without adhering to the parameters under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Further, in Union of India v. Prateek Shukla [Union of India v. Prateek Shukla, (2021) 5 SCC 430 : (2021) 2 SCC (Cri) 597] , one of us (D.Y. Chandrachud, J.), speaking for a two-Judge Bench, noted that non-application of mind to the rival submissions and the seriousness of the allegations involving an offence under the NDPS Act by the High Court are grounds for cancellation of bail.

20. Section 37 of the NDPS Act regulates the grant of bail in cases involving offences under the NDPS Act. Section 37 reads as follows:

"37. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable .--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (2 of 1974),--

(a) every offence punishable under this Act shall be cognizable;

(b) no person accused of an offence punishable for offences under Section 19 or Section 24 or Section 27-A and also for offences involving commercial quantity shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless --

(i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and

(ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail . (2) The limitations on granting of bail specified in clause ( b) of sub-section (1) are in addition to the limitations under the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (2 of 1974) or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail."

Page No.# 3/4

(emphasis supplied)

21. Under Section 37(1)(b)(ii), the limitations on the grant of bail for offences punishable under Sections 19, 24 or 27-A and also for offences involving a commercial quantity are:

(i) The Prosecutor must be given an opportunity to oppose the application for bail; and

(ii) There must exist "reasonable grounds to believe" that : ( a) the person is not guilty of such an offence; and (b) he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.

22. The standard prescribed for the grant of bail is "reasonable ground to believe" that the person is not guilty of the offence. Interpreting the standard of "reasonable grounds to believe", a two-Judge Bench of this Court in Shiv Shanker Kesari [Union of India v. Shiv Shanker Kesari, (2007) 7 SCC 798 : (2007) 3 SCC (Cri) 505] , held that : (SCC pp. 801-02, paras 7-8 & 10-11) "7. The expression used in Section 37(1)(b)(ii) is "reasonable grounds". The expression means something more than prima facie grounds. It connotes substantial probable causes for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offence charged and this reasonable belief contemplated in turn points to existence of such facts and circumstances as are sufficient in themselves to justify recording of satisfaction that the accused is not guilty of the offence charged.

8. The word "reasonable" has in law the prima facie meaning of reasonable in regard to those circumstances of which the actor, called on to act reasonably, knows or ought to know. It is difficult to give an exact definition of the word "reasonable".

'7. ... Stroud's Judicial Dictionary, 4th Edn., p. 2258 states that it would be unreasonable to expect an exact definition of the word "reasonable". Reason varies in its conclusions according to the idiosyncrasy of the individual, and the times and circumstances in which he thinks. The reasoning which built up the old scholastic logic sounds now like the jingling of a child's toy.' [See MCD v. Jagan Nath Ashok Kumar [MCD v. Jagan Nath Ashok Kumar, (1987) 4 SCC 497] , SCC p. 504, para 7 and Gujarat Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. Unique Erectors (Gujarat) (P) Ltd. [Gujarat Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. Unique Erectors (Gujarat) (P) Ltd., (1989) 1 SCC 532] ]

***

10. The word "reasonable" signifies "in accordance with reason". In the ultimate analysis it is a question of fact, whether a particular act is reasonable or not depends on the circumstances in a given situation. (See Municipal Corpn. of Greater Mumbai v. Kamla Mills Ltd. [Municipal Corpn. of Greater Mumbai v. Kamla Mills Ltd., (2003) 6 SCC 315] )

11. The court while considering the application for bail with reference to Section 37 of the Act is not called upon to record a finding of not guilty. It is for the limited purpose essentially confined to the question of releasing the accused on bail that the court is called upon to see if there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty and records its satisfaction about the existence of such grounds. But the court has not to consider the matter as if it is pronouncing a judgment of acquittal and recording a finding of not guilty."

Page No.# 4/4

(emphasis supplied)"

6. The standard prescribed for the grant of bail is "reasonable ground to believe"

that the person is not guilty of the offence. The court while considering the application for bail with reference to Section 37 of the Act is not called upon to record a finding of not guilty. It is for the limited purpose essentially confined to the question of releasing the accused on bail that the court is called upon to see if there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty and records its satisfaction about the existence of such grounds. Here, in this case, the reasonable ground to believe that the accused is not guilty is not available.

7. For the aforesaid reason, the bail application of the petitioner is rejected and disposed of accordingly.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant