Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010132622025 2025:GAU-AS:9868 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1379/2025 MAFIDUL ISLAM S/O AKKEL ALI R/O BHARAL KUNDI B EEL P.S. JOGIGHOPA DIST. BONGAIGAON, ASSAM PIN-783323 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A KADDUS, MR. S M MOLLAH Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER 29.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. S.M.Mollah, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Sarma, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State of Assam. Page No.# 2/4 2. This application under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Mafidul Islam, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with North Abhayapuri Case No. 87/2025, under Sections 21(a)/21(b)/25/29 of the NDPS Act, 1985. 3. The gist of accusation in this case is that on 14.04.2025, one Utpal Kalita, SI of Police had lodged an FIR before the Officer-In-Charge of North Abhayapuri Police Station inter alia, alleging that, on the basis of information received through reliable sources, that one Zakir Hussain is coming from Rowmari area for selling illegal heroin, a search team was constituted. 4. During search operation, one suspected person, namely, Zakir Hussain was apprehended and from his possession 3 grams of suspected heroin was seized. 5. During interrogation, the apprehended person implicated the present petitioner. Accordingly, a search was conducted in the house of the present petitioner and 18 grams of suspected heroin weight with the containers were recovered therefrom. 6. It is also alleged that if the petitioner and his wife were apprehended at the time of his recovery. Later on, during interrogation, the present petitioner disclosed to the Investigating Officer that one Abdul Rahim was also involved in the illegal dealings of prohibited drugs and accordingly, the police took the petitioner to the house of the said Abdul Rahim. 7. However, it is alleged in the FIR, that the petitioner, who led the Page No.# 3/4 police to the house of other co-accused fled away from the custody of police. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not involved in the offence alleged in the FIR. He submits that in respect of the said offence, the wife of the petitioner was earlier arrested and she has already been released on bail. 9. He also submits that the FIR does not gave any indication as to how much heroin was seized from the possession of the house of the present petitioner. It only mentions that the weight of the suspected heroin, along with the container was about 15 grams. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that as the suspected heroin has already been seized and one of the co-accused, i.e. the wife of the present petitioner has also been released, custodial interrogation of the present petitioner may not be necessary. Hence, he prays for allowing the petitioner to go on anticipatory bail. 11. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has produced the Case Diary of North Abhayapuri Case No. 87/2025 and has vehemently opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner at this stage. He submits that there are sufficient incriminating materials against the petitioner in the Case Diary. 12. He submits that in fact it is from the house of the petitioner suspected heroin weighing about 15 grams were recovered. 13. He also submits that the petitioner who fled away from the Page No.# 4/4 custody of police is not entitled to get anticipatory bail in view of the incriminating materials present against him in the Case Diary. 14. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and have perused the Case Diary of North Abhayapuri Case No. 87/2025. 15. On perusal of the Case Diary, it appears that there are sufficient incriminating materials against the petitioner regarding his complicity in the offence alleged in this case. Further, there is also an indication that he was apprehended by police. However, he fled away from the custody of police. 16. Under such circumstances, this Court does not find it a fit case to grant the benefit of anticipatory bail to the present petitioner in the said case. 17. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected. 18. Send back the Case Diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant