Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010095402025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1041/2025 SRI IQBAL BAHAR @ IKBAL BAHAR @ MAMON S/O- ANAM UDDIN. R/O- LAFASHAIL. P.O- LAKHI BAZAR. DIST.- KARIMGANJ, ASSAM. PIN-788709 VERSUS NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU GUWAHATI, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MRS. R RONGMEI, S. DEVI,D GONMEI Advocate for the Respondent : SC, NCB, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 23.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. S. C. Biswas, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. C. Keyal, learned standing counsel for the NCB. 2. This application under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Sri Iqbal Bahar @ Ikbal Bahar @ Mamon, who has been apprehending his arrest in connection with NCB Crime No. 3/2025 under Page No.# 2/4 Sections 22(c)/29 of the NDPS Act, 1985. 3. The gist of accusation in this case is that on receipt of an information through reliable sources that one L. Lunkhomang Mate would be carrying 7.473 kgs of methamphetamine tablets from Moreh in Manipur to Silchar to hand it over to someone, a naka checking was arranged at Lailapur Police Post. During the naka checking operation, one Mahindra XUV 500 vehicle bearing Registration No. AS-01-BV-4318 was intercepted and 7.473 kgs of methamphetamine were recovered there from. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has received a notice under Section 67(c) of the NDPS Act, 1985 in connection with the aforesaid case. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in no way involved in the case in which the aforesaid contraband was recovered. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a businessman dealing with the business of electronics at Karimganj. He further submits that the petitioner is ready to co- operate in the investigation. However, as non-bailable offence under Section 22(c)/29 of the NDPS Act is involved in the case, he is apprehending that he may be arrested in connection with the case. He also submits that apart from the statement of the co-accused, there might not be anything on record against the petitioner. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submits that in view of the rulings of the Apex Court in the case of “Toofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu” reported in “(2021) 4 SCC 1”, the statement of co-accused may not be regarded as an incriminating evidence against the petitioner in the aforesaid case. Page No.# 3/4 6. On the other hand, the learned standing counsel for the NCB has vehemently opposed the grant of anticipated bail or any interim protection to the petitioner at this stage. He submits that prior to the issuance of notice dated 08.07.2025 under Section 67 of the NDPS Act to the present petitioner, notices under the aforesaid provision were issued to him on two prior occasions and on both the occasions, the petitioner has defaulted in appearing before the investigating agency. 7. The learned standing counsel for the NCB also submits that the co- accused who was arrested along with the contraband has, in his voluntary statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, has implicated the present petitioner and there are materials in the case diary to indicate that the present petitioner was the intended recipient of the contraband which has been seized in this case. He submits that even for grant of anticipatory bail, the petitioner has to overcome the embargo of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985. He further submits that at the stage of investigation, when an anticipatory bail has been filed in a case involving commercial quantity of NDPS Act, the observation of Apex Court in the case of “Toofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu (supra) would not come into aid of the petitioner. In support of his submission, the learned standing counsel for the NCB has cited a ruling of the Apex Court in the case of “State of Haryana Vs. Samarth Kumar” reported in “2022 0 Supreme (SC) 1562”, wherein it has been observed by the Apex Court as follows:- “8. In cases of this nature, the respondents may be able to take advantage of the decision in Tofan Singh vs. State of Tamil Nadu (supra), perhaps at the time of arguing the regular bail application or at the time of final hearing after conclusion of the trial. 9. To grant anticipatory bail in a case of this nature is not really warranted. Therefore, we are of the view that the High Court fell into Page No.# 4/4 an error in granting anticipatory bail to the respondents.” 8. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and have gone through the case diary of NCB Crime No. 3/2025. 9. It appears that on perusal of the case diary that at this stage statement of the co-accused recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, 1985 implicates the present petitioner of being the intended recipient of the contraband which was recovered in this case. 10. The Apex Court in the case of “State of Haryana Vs. Samarth Kumar” (supra) has observed that in cases of such nature, the respondent may be able to take advantage of the decision of “Toofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu” (supra) only at the time of arguing for regular bail application or at the time of hearing after conclusion of trial. However, it has observed that grant of anticipatory bail is not warranted in such cases. 11. In view of the observations made by the Apex Court in the aforesaid case, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is rejected at this stage. 12. Send back the case diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant