Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010067062025 2025:GAU-AS:3875 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./980/2025 MD ARIHANT ALI SON OF LATE SOFIQUL ALI, RESIDENT OF NO. 4, RAILWAY GATE, FANCYBAZAR, KAMRUP (M), ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P K SARMA, MS R SAHIN,MS M KAKOTY,MS. B BHUYAN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER Date : 02-04-2025 Heard Mr. P.K. Sarma, the learned counsel for the petitioner and also heard Mr. K.K. Das, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State respondent. 2. This is an application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Page No.# 2/3 Sanhita, 2023, with prayer for bail as the petitioner is behind bars since 16.02.2025 in connection with Panbazar P.S. Case No. 60/2025 u/s 21(b) of NDPS Act, 1985. 3. It is submitted by Mr. Sarma, the learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused/petitioner is behind the bar since last 16.02.2025 and thus the Investigating Officer got sufficient time for his custodial interrogation. Further he submitted that the cannabis is of intermediate quantity and hence the rigour of Section 37 does not attract in this case. 4. Mr. Sarma further submitted that his wife is also in advance stage of pregnancy and there is none to look after his wife in his absence and considering this ground also this petition may be considered. However, he is ready and willing to co-operate with the Investigating Office in further investigation of the case, if he is granted the privilege of bail. 5. Mr. Das, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted in this regard that from the FIR itself it is seen that the contraband was recovered from the conscious possession of the accused/petitioner and the case is still under investigation. Accordingly he raised objection and insisted to call for the Case Diary. 6. Hearing the submissions made by learned counsel for both sides, without going into the merit of case and also considering the length of detention i.e. 46 days already undergone by the accused/petitioner, I find that the Investigating Officer has got sufficient time to interrogate the present accused-petitioner in custody and hence I find that further custodial interrogation may not be necessary for further investigation of the case. Accordingly, I find it is a fit case to enlarge the accused/petitioner on bail. Page No.# 3/3 7. Accordingly, the accused/petitioner be released on bail on furnishing a bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) only with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, Kamrup (M). The accused/petitioner, namely Md. Arihant Ali, be enlarged on bail, subject to the following conditions:- (i) that the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by the Investigating Officer as and when required; (ii) that the petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threaten or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; and (iii) that the petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the learned Special Judge, Kamrup (M) without prior permission. The Bail Application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant