Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010110422025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1714/2025 JHILIK GHOSH W/O- SUBRATA DEBNATH. R/O- SAILYA NIBAS, 19 POST OFFICE ROAD, DUM DUM (M), NORTH 24 PARGANAS, WEST BENGAL, 700028 VERSUS DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE REPRESENTED BY SC, DRI Advocate for the Petitioner : TAWHID LASKAR, ASHRAFUL BORBHUYAN,MR. D K AGARWALA Advocate for the Respondent : SC, DRI, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 04.08.2025 1. Heard Mr. T. Laskar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. C. Keyal, learned Standing counsel for the DRI. 2. This application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Jhilik Ghosh, who was arrested on 10.01.2025 in connection with NDPS Case No. 35/2023 corresponding to DRI Case No. 13/ CL/ NDPS/ Page No.# 2/7 GANJA/ DRI/ GZU/ 2022-23 under Sections 20(b)(ii)(c)/22(c)/29 of the NDPS Act, 1985. 3. The gist of accusation in this case is that on 10.09.2022, on receipt of an information through reliable sources, a team of officials of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence proceeded to one garage, namely, Bishnujyoti Body Builders near Nilachal Parking, Lalmati, N.H. No. 37, Guwahati and intercepted a container truck bearing Registration No. NL-01-AF-7084 and apprehended one Gopal Chandra Rai from the said truck. During search of the said truck, 177 nos. of packets containing suspected ganja weighing about 2004 Kgs. were recovered therefrom. After completion of the investigation, final complaint was filed by the DRI against five accused persons including the present petitioner under Sections 20(b)(ii)(c))/29 of the NDPS Act, 1985, the said case which was registered as NDPS Case No. 35/2023 before the learned of learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Kamrup(M) at Guwahati. The Trial Court issued non- bailable warrant of arrest against the petitioner Jhilik Ghosh. The petitioner preferred a criminal petition before this Court bearing Criminal Petition No. 794/2024 and in pursuant to the directions given by this Court, she appeared before the Trial Court and prayed for regular bail. The husband of the petitioner, namely, Subrata Debnath was also shown as an accused in the final complaint. Though, the Trial Court rejected the bail application of the present petitioner, her husband’s prayer for bail was allowed. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner Jhilik Ghosh is in no manner involved in the offence alleged in the complaint filed by the DRI and there is no indication in the complaint regarding the complicity of the present petitioner in the offence alleged in this case. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the husband of the Page No.# 3/7 present petitioner, namely, Subrata Debnath had transferred an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh) to one Lavkesh Jalan about five months and twelve days prior to the date on which the contraband has been seized in this case. He submits that this was a regular business dealing and it has no connection with the contraband recovered in the instant case. He submits that the petitioner had transferred Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) to the driver of the said truck only for carry out some minor repairing works of the outer body of the truck. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no material on record indicating that how the said transfer of Rs.15,000/- by the petitioner is linked with the contraband seized in this case. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is innocent and no material is there on record indicating her complicity in the offence alleged in this case. 6. On the other hand, learned standing counsel, DRI has vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the present petitioner. He has submitted that the quantity of contraband involved in this case is off commercial quantity and, therefore, the embargo of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985 is applicable to this case. He also submits that during investigation, the Investigating Officer issued notice to the petitioner to appear before the Investigating Officer. However, in spite of repeated notice, the petitioner did not turn up before the Investigating Officer and, therefore, the petitioner had to be shown as an absconder in the final complaint. He further submits that there are documentary evidence and bank transaction showing the involvement of the present petitioner in drug trafficking racket. 7. It is also submitted by the learned standing counsel, DRI that the Page No.# 4/7 financial transaction done by the present petitioner on several occasions remained unexplained indicating direct involvement of petitioner in drug trafficking racket. He also submits that the accused Gopal Chandra Rai has stated in his voluntary statement that he was promised Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) for transporting ganja and he received Rs.15,000/- from Pratayaksh Pandit via Google-pay from the account of Jhilik Ghosh. 8. The learned standing counsel, DRI, has also submitted that the bank transaction involving the account of above named petitioner indicates to direct involvement of the petitioner and her husband Subrata Debnath in drug trafficking racket. He submits that considering the evidence which is available on record which implicates the petitioner in the offence alleged in this case, she should not be granted bail in this case. 9. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and have gone through the records of NDPS Case No. 35/2023 which was requisitioned from the Trial Court. 10. It appears that the charge-sheet in the above referred case was laid against five accused persons including the present petitioner and her husband. However, the Trial Court by order dated 20.06.2025 has discharged the husband of the petitioner, namely, Subrata Debnath in the aforesaid case. It also appears that the driver of the truck who was apprehended with conscious possession of the seized ganja has stated in his voluntary statement that he received Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) from Subrata Debnath and he did not name Jhilik Ghosh. It also appears that an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh) were transferred to the account of the owner of the seized truck from the account of the petitioner, Jhilik Ghosh, however, there are materials to indicate that tehh said amount was transferred by the husband of the petitioner, Page No.# 5/7 namely, Subrata Debnath and not by Jhilik Ghosh. 11. It is relevant to note that the transfer of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh) to the account of the owner of the seized truck was made about six months prior to the seizure of the contraband in this case. There is nothing on record to link the said transfer of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh) with the contraband seized in this case. 12. Moreover, regarding transfer of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) to the driver of the seized truck from the account of the above named petitioner, it appears that the driver of the seized truck has not implicated the above named petitioner. He has categorically stated that he received the aforesaid money from Subrata Debnath. 13. It appears that the materials in the case diary indicates that the bank account of the present petitioner was utilized by her husband in transferring the money to the owner of the seized vehicle as well as the driver of the seized vehicle. It also appears that the Trial Court by order dated 20.06.2025 has discharged the husband of the petitioner, namely, Subrata Debnath. 14. Further, though the accusation that aforesaid monetary transaction was done in connection with the commission of offence alleged in this case, nothing apart from the voluntary statement of the driver of the seized truck Gopal Chandra Rai is there on record to link the Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) transferred from the bank account of the present petitioner to the driver of the seized vehicle. 15. Mere finding the evidence of monetary transaction between two co- accused in itself is not sufficient to come to a finding that said monetary transaction was in respect of the seized contraband. Apart from the statement Page No.# 6/7 of co-accused there has to be some evidence on record to indicate that the petitioner had either abated or was a party to criminal conspiracy to commit the offence alleged in this case. 16. However, in the instant case, even the co-accused has not implicated the petitioner and the person who was implicated by the driver has already been discharged from this case. Under above circumstances, this Court is of considered opinion that the twin embargo of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985 are not applicable in case of the present petitioner for the purpose of granting bail to her in this case. 17. The above named petitioner is accordingly allowed to go on bail of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) with two sureties of like amount subject to the satisfaction of the Trial Court with following conditions:- i. That the petitioner shall co-operate in the trial of NDPS Case No. 35/2023, which is pending in the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Kamrup(M), Guwahati, ii. That the petitioner shall appear before the Trial Court as and when so required by the Trial Court; iii. That the petitioner 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 petitioner; iv. That the petitioner shall provide her contact details including photocopies of her Aadhar Card or Driving License or PAN card as well as, mobile number, and other contact details before the Trial Court; v. That the petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without Page No.# 7/7 prior permission of the Trial Court and when such leave is granted by the Trial Court, the petitioner shall submit her leave address and contact details during such leave before the Trial Court; and vi. That the petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail. 18. This bail application is accordingly disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant