Jafarulla Sheikh Alias Jaffulla Sheikh vs State Of Assam on 25 March, 2026

                                                                      Page No.# 1/6

GAHC010034512026




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

                                Case No. : Bail Appln./587/2026

            JAFARULLA SHEIKH ALIAS JAFFULLA SHEIKH
            SON OF JABBAR SHEIKH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- NANKA DARANGA, N.C.
            DARANGA, PIN- 781360, DARANGAMELA, P.S.- TAMULPUR, DISTRICT-
            BAKSA B.T.A.D., ASSAM.

            VERSUS

            STATE OF ASSAM
            REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM



Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR S N KRISHNATRAYA, MS. P BORUAH

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,




                                   BEFORE
                 HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA

                                           ORDER

Date : 25.03.2026

1. Heard Mr. H. A. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner in Bail Application No. 264/2026 and Mr. S. N. Krishnatraya, learned counsel for the petitioner in Bail Application No. 587/2026. Also heard Mr. P. S. Lahkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. By this common order, this court intends to dispose of the Bail Page No.# 2/6

Application No. 264/2026 filed by Harun Ali as well as Bail Application No. 587/2026 filed by Jafarulla Sheikh @ Jaffulla Sheikh as both the case arose out of the same FIR.

3. The gist of accusation in this case is that 21.04.2025, one Mohendra Saikia had lodged an FIR before the Officer-in-charge of Tamulpur Police Station, inter alia, alleging that an information was received through reliable sources that some individuals would be carrying psychotropic tablets somewhere near Sulemanbasti. On receipt of this said information, a search team was constituted and a naka checking was organized near Sulemanbasti and one suspected person, who identified himself as Sabor Ali was apprehended. During search of this said person, 1935 grams of Samplex Plus Capsules suspected to contain Tramadol was recovered from his possession. On receipt of the FIR, the investigation was initiated and later on charge-sheet was laid against both the above named petitioners and four other accused persons.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the above named petitioners are not involved in the offence alleged in the FIR and in respect of which charge-sheet has been laid. They submit that the petitioners in both the bail cases are implicated only on the basis of statement of the co- accused, namely, Sabor Ali. They submit that apart from statement of Sabor Ali, there is no other incriminating material which would implicate them in the offence alleged in the FIR.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners have relied on the ruling of the Apex Court in the case of "Tofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu" reported in "(2021) 4 SCC 1" in support of their submissions.

Page No.# 3/6

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners have also submitted that in the instant case, the mandate of Section 36 as well as Section 62 of the BNSS have been violated at the time of making arrest of the petitioners. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that in arrest memo, no signatures of independent witnesses were obtained by the arresting authority neither the family members of the arrested persons were informed. They, therefore, submit that arrests of the petitioners were not made in accordance with the provisions as mandated in Section 62 of the BNSS.

7. They submit that the deprivation of personal liberty of the petitioners was not made in terms of the legal provisions contained in BNSS as such their fundamental right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India has been violated and on that ground only, they are entitled to get bail in this case. In support of their submission, the learned counsel for the petitioners have cited following rulings of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court:-

(i) "Anowar Hussain Choudhury Vs. State of Assam"(Bail Application No. 3775/2025, order dated 19.02.2026)

(ii) "Wahidur Ali and Anr. Vs. State of Assam" (Bail Application No. 263/2026, order dated 26.02.2026)

8. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that since the quantity of contraband recovered in this case is of commercial quantity, hence, the embargo of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985 is applicable in this case. He fairly submits that the present petitioners were arrested mainly Page No.# 4/6

on the basis of statement of the main accused, Sabor Ali. He also submits that there are some independent witnesses whose statements have been recorded during the investigation who have stated that the present petitioners were involved in consuming drugs and trafficking of drugs. However, he also fairly submits that as regards recovery of 1935 grams of Samplex Plus Capsules from the possession of the co-accused Sabor Ali is concerned, there is nothing specific on record against the petitioners apart from the statement of the co- accused.

9. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has also fairly submitted that though the signatures of independent witnesses on the arrest memo as mandated under Section 36 of the BNSS is not there. However, the petitioners were not prejudiced for that fact as there is full compliance of mandate of Sections 47 and 48 of BNSS, therefore, he opposes the grant of bail to the petitioner.

10. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for both sides and have gone through the materials available on record. I have also gone through the rulings cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners.

11. It appears, after perusal of the materials on record, that as regards recovery of 1935 grams of Samplex Plus Capsules, which contains Tramadol from the possession of co-accused Sabor Ali is concerned, apart from the implicating statement of co-accused Sabor Ali, there is nothing specific on record which incriminates any of the above named accused persons with the possession or trafficking of 1935 grams of Samplex Plus Capsules which was recovered from the co-accused.

Page No.# 5/6

12. As it is no longer res integra in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of "Tofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu (supra) that statement of co- accused cannot be used in a trial against another co-accused where offence under NDPS Act, 1985is involved. It also appears from record that on the same ground, one of the co-accused, namely, Sohedul Islam, was granted bail during the investigation stage itself. As there is no other material against the present petitioners, apart from the incriminating statement of the co-accused, namely, Sabor Ali, which implicates them with the offence involved in this case, this court is of considered opinion that there is no admissible evidence on record on the basis of which it can be held that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioners are guilty of offences involved in this case. As such, the embargo of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985would not be applicable to the aforesaid petitioners and accordingly they are entitled to get bail.

13. There is also an apparent violation of the mandate of Section 36 of the BNSS, which, for the sake of brevity, this court does not intend to discuss in this order as the petitioners are already found entitled to get bail in this case.

14. Accordingly, in view of the discussions made and reasons stated in the foregoing paragraphs, both the petitioners, namely, Harun Ali in Bail Application No. 264/2026 as well as Jafarulla Sheikh @ Jaffulla Sheikhin Bail Application No. 587/2026 are allowed to go on bail of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) each with one surety of like amount, subject to the satisfaction of learned Special Judge, Baksa with following conditions:-

i. That the petitioners shall co-operate in the trial of Special NDPS Case No. 18/2025, which is pending in the Court of the learned Special Judge, Page No.# 6/6

Baksa.

ii. That the petitioners shall appear before the Trial Court as and when so required by the Trial Court;

iii. That the petitioners 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 petitioners shall provide their contact details including photocopies of their Aadhar Card or Driving License or PAN card as well as, mobile number, and other contact details before the Trial Court;

v. That the petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without prior permission of the Trial Court and when such leave is granted by the Trial Court, the petitioners shall submit their leave address and contact details during such leave before the Trial Court; and

vi. That the petitioners shall not commit any offence while on bail.

15. Accordingly, both the bail applications are hereby disposed of.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant