Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010099692025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1620/2025 JAMAL HUSSAIN SON OF LATE ANOYAR UDDIN R/O IVLL-MIRJAPUR, P.S. BADARPUR DIST. SRIBHUMI, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR H R CHOUDHURY, Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 16.09.2025 1. Heard Mr. H. R. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. The application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Jamal Hussain, who has been detained behind the bars since 05.12.2024 in connection with Special (NDPS) Case No. 109/2023 pending Page No.# 2/5 before the Court of the learned Special Judge, Karimganj under Sections 22(c)/29 of the NDPS Act, 1985. 3. The gist of the accusation in this case is that on 22.08.2023, one Dibakar Gogoi, SI of Police had lodged an FIR before the Officer-in-charge of Karimganj Police Station, inter alia, alleging that on 21.08.2023 at about 12:10 PM, the Additional S.P (HQ), Karimganj received an information through reliable sources regarding illegal transportation of suspected Yaba tablets from Seralipur towards Karimganj. Accordingly, a police team was constituted and dispatched towards naka checking point in front of M.M Home Fashions at Chargola. While the police team arrived there, they saw a person holding a black color polythene in his hand who was trying to flee away from the police team. The said person was apprehended and after following due procedure, he was searched. The said person was identified as Joynal Haque. After due search of the said person, 2.191 Kgs. of suspected Yaba tablets (containing methamphetamine) was recovered from his possession. 4. It is further stated in the FIR that during interrogation, Joynal Haque revealed that the suspected Yaba tablets were peddled by him, as per the instructions of the present petitioner, namely, Jamal Hussain who was staying in a rented house situated at Sorapur, Rangabazar. Accordingly, the police team rushed to Sorapur, Rangabazar at about 3:50 PM and as showed by Joynal Haque, searched the house of Jamal Hussain. It is further stated in the FIR that during the search operation, the petitioner Jamal Hussain was not found in the said house, however, his wife was present there. During the search, a total of 0.989 Kgs. of suspected Yaba tablets were recovered which were kept in a black color polythene hanging on the wall of the kitchen of the said house. Page No.# 3/5 5. It is pertinent to mention herein that before filing the instant bail application, the petitioner had approached this Court on two earlier occasions. In the first occasion, he filed an anticipatory bail application, which was rejected by this Court on 24.05.2024. Thereafter, after his arrest, he again approached this Court on 03.03.2025. On both the occasions, the bail for bail was rejected by this Court after perusal of the records and finding sufficient incriminating materials against the petitioner. It was held in both the occasions that the petitioner failed to overcome the embargo of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985. On this occasion, the petitioner at one stage of the hearing took the plea that the search of the house of the petitioner was not conducted as per the law. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner on 18.07.2025 sought some time to produce some authority in support of his submission that search of the premises from where contraband was recovered was not in pursuant to the law enforce. However, today when the matter was heard, the said plea was not pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner and instead a new story was brought up. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the wife of the petitioner had filed an additional affidavit, inter alia, stating that the petitioner no longer stays with his wife and he left her company about one year prior to lodging of the FIR. It is also stated in the affidavit filed by the wife of the petitioner that the petitioner during this period staying at Mizoram and it is only when he came to know about the pendency of a non-bailable warrant of arrest, he came back to Karimganj where he was arrested in execution of the non-bailable warrant of arrest issued against him. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the petitioner Page No.# 4/5 was not staying in the residence from which the contraband was recovered, there is no reasonable material to implicate him in the offence alleged in the FIR and, therefore, he submits that the embargo of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985 is not applicable. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the dispute between the husband and wife was not stated earlier as the petitioner did not want to bring the family dispute in public domain. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the co- accused in this case, namely, Jaynal Hoque has already been released and, therefore, the petitioner may also be released. 10. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner on the ground that on earlier occasion, i.e., while dismissing the Bail Application No. 380/2025 on 03.03.2025, this Court has observed that there are sufficient incriminating materials against the present petitioner and there are also materials on record to indicate that the premises from where the seizure of the contraband was made was used for residing by the petitioner and his wife. He also submits that the story narrated in the additional affidavit filed by the wife of the petitioner cannot be believed as it was not disclosed by the petitioner on any of the earlier occasions when he approached this Court. He, therefore, prays that considering the materials available against the petitioner, the embargo of Section 37 of the NDPS Act is applicable in this case. 11. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and have gone through the materials available on record. 12. It appears that in none of the earlier occasions, the petitioner had Page No.# 5/5 disclosed the fact narrated by his wife in the additional affidavit filed today. This court is of the considered opinion that if the said facts are regarded as relevant facts, the petitioner would be at fault of suppressing the material facts from this Court on earlier occasions when he approached this Court for seeking bail. It has already observed by this Court that while rejecting the prayer for bail on earlier occasion, i.e., on 03.03.2025, there are sufficient materials in the record to indicate that the premises from where the seizure was made was used for resigning by the petitioner and his wife and, therefore, the contents of the additional affidavit filed by the wife of the petitioner for the second time does not inspire confidence on this Court. 13. Though, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the co-accused in this case, namely, Jaynal Hoque has already been released, however, it appears that the co-accused was released on the ground of prolonged incarceration after spending 1 and ½ years behind the bars which is not the case in the case of the present petitioner. 14. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has been unable to overcome the embargo of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985 in this case. 15. The prayer for bail is accordingly rejected. JUDGE Comparing Assistant