Jhumi Begom Choudhury vs The State Of Tripura on 9 April, 2026

                        HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA

                                   AGARTALA


                              BA 54 OF 2026

Jhumi Begom Choudhury
W/o Sajahan Alom Laskar, resident of Jalalpur Part-1,
P.O.& P.S. Kalain, District-Cachar, Assam.
                                                   .... Applicant/Petitioner
On behalf of

1. Sajahan Alom Laskar,
S/o Late Mohabbat Ali Laskar
Resident of Jalalpur Part-1,
P.O.& P.S. Kalain, District-Cachar, Assam.

2. Saikul Islam
S/o Late Mohabbat Ali Laskar
Resident of Jalalpur Part-1,
P.O.& P.S. Kalain, District-Cachar, Assam
                                                       --- Accused persons
                                                                 (In custody)
                                    Versus

The State of Tripura
                                                            --- Respondent.

For the Applicant/Petitioner : Mr. Arpan Jamatia, Advocate.

For the Respondent             :    Mr. Raju Datta, P.P.

Date of hearing                :    25.03.2026

Date of delivery of
Judgment & Order               :    09.04.2026
                                     YES   NO
Whether fit for reporting      :           



              HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. DATTA PURKAYASTHA

                        JUDGMENT AND ORDER

            Heard learned counsels of both sides.

2. As per the FIR, one vehicle bearing Registration No. AS01-HC- 6438 was detained on 10.02.2025 at Ambassa while it was proceeding towards Agartala and total 9,24,000 nos. of suspected 'Yaba' tablets of total

weight 100.095 kg were recovered from the said vehicle which was kept inside cuboidal artificial improvised chamber attached to the fuel tank of the vehicle. The driver namely, Sibajul Hossain and another co-driver, namely, Sairul Islam were arrested. Police proceeded with the investigation and ultimately, laid the charge sheet against five arrested accused persons, namely, Ansar Uddin Laskar, Sibajul Hossain, Shamim Uddin Purkayastha, Saddam Hossain, Billal Miah along with other three accused persons, namely, Abdul Qader, Saikul Islam, and Sajahan Alom Laskar showing them absconder. Accused Saikul Islam and Sajahan Alom Laskar have now prayed for bail. They are in custody from 05.12.2025 i.e. the date when they surrendered in the Court of learned Special Judge.

3. Learned counsel, Mr. A. Jamatia for the petitioners submits that accused Sajahan Alom Laskar is the owner of the alleged vehicle and there is no material against him in the record, except the fact that he was the owner of the vehicle. Police has illegally showed him as absconder though he himself appeared before the learned Special Judge, Dhalai and prayed for release of the alleged vehicle on bail which was also allowed by the learned Special Judge and thereafter also on several occasions, he appeared before the learned Special Judge. Even the charge sheet also shows that after receiving notice under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, he appeared before the I.O. Therefore, he was never an absconder.

4. Regarding accused Saikul Islam, learned counsel submits that except the CDR analysis report of his mobile number that he had certain calls on the date of alleged incident with the driver, no other materials are there and therefore, bail may be granted to both of them.

5. Learned counsel also relies on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Noor Aga vs. State of Punjab and Anr., (2008) 16 SCC 417 and relevant paragraph nos. 58 and 59 as referred by him are extracted here-under:

"58. Sections 35 and 54 of the Act, no doubt, raise presumptions with regard to the culpable mental state on the part of the accused as also place burden of proof in this behalf on the accused; but a bare perusal of the said provision would clearly show that presumption would operate in the trial of the accused only in the event the circumstances contained therein are fully satisfied. An initial burden exists upon the prosecution and only when it stands satisfied, would the legal burden shift. Even then,

the standard of proof required for the accused to prove his innocence is not as high as that of the prosecution. Whereas the standard of proof required to prove the guilt of the accused on the prosecution is "beyond all reasonable doubt" but it is "preponderance of probability" on the accused. If the prosecution fails to prove the foundational facts so as to attract the rigours of Section 35 of the Act, the actus reus which is possession of contraband by the accused cannot be said to have been established.

59. With a view to bring within its purview the requirements of Section 54 of the Act, element of possession of the contraband was essential so as to shift the burden on the accused. The provisions being exceptions to the general rule, the generality thereof would continue to be operative, namely, the element of possession will have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt."

6. Learned counsel also relies on a decision of Delhi High Court in the case of Vinod Nagar vs. Narcotics Control Bureau, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 1067 wherein at paragraph nos. 15 and 16 followings were observed and ultimately bail was granted to the applicant, which read thus--

"15. In the present case, apart from the CDR and CAF reports, and some unverified WhatsApp chats between the applicant and the co- accused, there is no evidence to show that the applicant was involved in the commission of the crime of drug trafficking. This Court, while dealing with somewhat similar facts, in the case of Dalip Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi) : 2019 SCC OnLine Del 6494, had observed as under:

"11. On perusal of the record, it is prima facie seen that there are two major missing links in the case of the prosecution. There is no link established by the prosecution between the petitioner with the alleged supplier Manoj. Further the entire case of the prosecution, in so far as petitioner is concerned is circumstantial i.e. based solely on disclosure statement of a co-accused which is per se not admissible without there being any corroboration. Prosecution has not been able to establish any connection between the subject offence and the bank accounts, where the petitioner is alleged to have been depositing money or with the holders of those accounts. Merely because the petitioner has been having telephonic conversation with the co-accused, would not be sufficient to hold that petitioner is guilty of the subject offence. There is no recovery made from the petitioner.

12. I am of the view that requirement of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are satisfied. In so far as the petitioner is concerned, there are reasonable grounds to believe that petitioner is not guilty of the said offence."

(emphasis supplied)

16. It is pertinent to note that no recovery has been effectuated from the applicant in the present case. In such circumstances, merely because the applicant was in regular touch with the co-accused, is not sufficient to prima facie establish the offence against the applicant."

7. He also refers another judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of Phundreimayum Yas Khan vs. State (GNCT of Delhi), Bail Application No.1383/2022 wherein the High Court observed that so far as the applicant was concerned, the case of prosecution was circumstantial and was based on solely on the disclosure statement of the co-accused which was not per se admissible without there being any corroboration and ultimately, the Court granted bail to the accused. In paragraph no.21.5, the followings were observed by the High Court, which read thus--

"21.5 Applicability of the rigours of section 37 of NDPS Act

a. In the present case, there is no recovery of commercial quantity from the applicant, at the applicant's behest or from the applicant's premises. This court in "Shravan Kumar v. State of NCT of Delhi" in Bail Application No. 175/2018 has held that:--

"Undisputedly, the case of the prosecution qua the petitioner is based upon circumstantial evidence. No recovery of any contraband was affected from the petitioner. Allegations against him are that he conspired with co-accuses persons for committing the aforesaid offences. The petitioner was arrested after about twenty days of the arrest of the co-accused Jagdish on 05.09.2017. The prosecution has placed reliance only on call detail record between the petitioner and co accused Saroj Subudhi. It is alleged that accused sent Mobile No. 8860594548 or the accused Jagdish to co accused Saroj from Mobile No. 9650310668 through SMS, This circumstance alone at this stage is not enough to deny bail to the petitioner despite bar under section 37 of the NDPS Act."

b. In the present case there is no recovery from the applicant, Amarjit Singh Sandhu has not been arrested, nothing has been recovered at the instance of the applicant and there is no material to the link the applicant with the recovery of the commercial quantity from Sayed Javed Hussain, except Sayed Javed Hussain's own statement. In this view of the matter, the rigours of section 37 of the NDPS Act do not apply to the applicant."

8. Learned counsel, Mr. A. Jamatia also refers to a decision in the case of Shince Babu vs. State of Kerala & Anr., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 5829 wherein, on the ground of claim of parity of bail, other co-accused persons were granted bail by learned Special Judge. He also submits that in this case, the witnesses are all police officials and therefore, there is no chance of influencing the witnesses by the accused persons.

9. Learned P.P., on the other hand, conteds that the owner of the vehicle cannot deny his criminal liability because a permanent chamber was made deforming the shape of the vehicle to carry the contraband items and without the knowledge of the owner it was not possible. Learned P.P. further

refers to a few statements of the witnesses recorded by the I.O. which indicate that the petitioner no.2 is directly involved in the alleged crime. Learned P.P. also refers to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bishwajit Dey vs. State of Assam, (2025) 3 SCC 241 wherein at Paragraph No.33 it has been observed that the scenarios where the owner of the vehicle is the person from whom the possession of contraband drugs/substance is recovered or the same is recovered from the possession of the agent of the owner i.e. like driver or cleaner hired by the owner. In those scenarios, the owner of the vehicle and/or his agent would necessarily be arrayed as an accused.

10. This Court has taken into consideration the submissions of learned counsels of both sides and also gone through the materials placed by the I.O. on conclusion of investigation.

11. So far as the accused Sajahan Alom Laskar is concerned, there is no dispute that he is the registered owner of the said vehicle. The alleged contraband items were recovered from an artificial chamber attached to the fuel tank of the vehicle. Without any materials in contra, it is hard to infer that without the knowledge and consent of the owner such improvisation was made in the said fuel tank by some other persons. There is nothing to presume that he was not the custodian of the said vehicle and dominion of the vehicle was not with him prior to the said incident. As per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Biswajit Dey (supra) owner is also liable to be arrayed as an accused in such a case. Therefore, the bail application filed on behalf of the accused Sajahan Alom Laskar merits rejection.

12. Now, coming to the case of accused Saikul Islam who is the brother of original owner of the vehicle i.e. Sajahan Alom Laskar, police has examined one witness, namely, Iqbal Hossain who is the resident of the locality of the said accused. He categorically stated in his statement that Ansar Uddin Laskar, Kader Uddin, Saikul Islam and Shamim Uddin Purkayastha were engaged in drug trafficking. Saikul has also a 12 wheeler vehicle of which Kader Uddin is the driver. They are all businessmen and they also made different hidden chambers inside the said vehicle in the shop of one Shamim Uddin for the purpose of such drug trafficking, and the artificial chamber in the vehicle from which the contraband items were

recovered, was also made by said Shamim Uddin. The I.O. also collected CDR and SDR of said Saikul Islam and some other accused persons and on analysis of the same, it was found by him that said Saikul Islam had communicated with the arrested driver of the seized vehicle namely Shibajul Hossain 5 times in between 00-25 hours to 1:44 hours i.e. in odd hours, just prior to the seizing of the said vehicle with contraband articles at Betbagan Police Naka Point, Ambassa.

13. In view of the above said prima facie materials, it cannot be held that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of alleged offence or that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail, as required under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Therefore, according to this Court, he also cannot be released on bail.

14. The decisions as relied on by learned counsel, Mr. Jamatia in case of Vinod Nagar (supra) and Phundreimayum Yas Khan (supra) are distinguishable with the facts of the present case.

15. It also appears that the accused persons who have been granted bail by learned Special Judge or by the High Court were so granted mainly on the ground of failure of communicating the 'grounds of arrest' to them. Therefore, their cases cannot be treated at par with the present accused persons, for no such issue is involved in the present bail application.

16. Considering thus, the bail prayer filed on behalf of accused persons, namely, Sajahan Alom Laskar and Saikul Islam is rejected.

17. Return the trial Court record with a copy of this order.

18. The copy of the charge sheet as submitted by learned P.P. may also be returned to him after keeping a photocopy of the same in the record.

JUDGE SANJAY GHOSH Digitally signed by SANJAY GHOSH Date: 2026.04.09 15:57:26 +05'30' sanjay