Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010132172025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2000/2025 SOHEDUL ISLAM S/O ABDUL RAHMAN VILL- NK DARRANGA P.S. TAMULPUR DIST. BAKSA, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R ALI, MISS. S PARBIN,MR H A AHMED Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 23.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. H. A. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. K. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. This application under Section 483 of BNSS 2023 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Sohedul Islam, who has been detained behind the bars since 22.04.2025 (for last 92 days) in connection with Tamulpur P.S. Case No. Page No.# 2/4 108/2025 under Section 22(c) of the NDPS Act, 1985. 3. The gist of accusation in this case is that on 21.04.2025, one Mohendra Saikia had lodged an FIR before the Officer-in-charge of Tamulpur Police Station, inter alia, alleging that an information was received through reliable sources that some individuals would be carrying psychotropic tablets somewhere near Sulemanbasti. On receipt of this said information, a search team was constituted and a naka checking was organized near Sulemanbasti and one suspected person, who identified himself as Sabor Ali was apprehended. During search of this said person, 1935 grams of Samplex Plus Capsules suspected to contain Tramadol was recovered from his possession. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is in no way involved in the offence alleged in the FIR. He further submits that the petitioner has been implicated in the above case only on the basis of the statement of the co-accused, namely, Sabor Ali. Apart from the statement of the co-accused, there is nothing in the case diary which implicates the petitioner. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the ruling of the Apex Court in the case of “Toofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu” reported in“(2021) 4 SCC 1”. 6. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has produced the case diary of Tamulpur P.S. Case No. 108/2025 and has submitted that there are incriminating materials in the case diary against the petitioner. He however, submits that at this stage, apart from the statement of the co-accused, other materials against the petitioner are yet to be collected. He also submits Page No.# 3/4 that the forensic report is also not received in this case. 7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and have gone through the case diary of Tamulpur P.S. Case No. 108/2025. 8. On perusal of the case diary, it appears that the petitioner has been implicated in this case on the basis of the statement of the co-accused and apart from said statement, at this stage, there is nothing in the case diary which implicates him in the offence alleged in the FIR. 9. As at this stage, there is no other material against the present petitioner apart from the incriminating statement of the co-accused against him, which cannot be used as evidence against the present petitioner, hence, there are no admissible evidence on the basis of which it can be held that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner is guilty of the offence involved in this case. 10. Further, as there is no material showing involvement of the petitioner in any offence of similar nature on earlier occasion, hence, there is no material to come to the finding that if he is released on bail he may commit offence. Hence, the embargo of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985 is not applicable at this stage against the petitioner. The petitioner is, therefore, entitled to get bail in this case. 11. In view of the above, the above named petitioner is allowed to go on bail of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) with one surety of like amount, subject to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, Baksa with following conditions:- Page No.# 4/4 (i) 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 of the case before the Investigating Officer; (ii) That the petitioner shall co-operate in the investigation; 12. This bail application is accordingly disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant