Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010141002025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2108/2025 NUR HUSSAIN SK. R/O CHAGOLIA PT. 2, GAZISHIGANGERKUTI P.S. GOLAKGANJ DIST. DHUBRI, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PP, GOVT. OF ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. J KALITA, MR SOHAING Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER 23.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. J. Kalita, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. K. Parasar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam. 2. This application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Nur Hussain Sk., who has been detained behind the bars since 01.07.2024 (for more than one year) in connection Page No.# 2/4 with Golakganj PS Case No. 157/2024 corresponding to Dhubri Special Casae No. 572/2024 under Section 22(C) of NDPS Act, 1985 presently pending before the court of learned Special Judge, Dhubri. 3. The gist of accusation in this case is that on 01.07.2024 one Hirokjyoti Das, SI of police had lodged an FIR before the Officer in-charge of Golakganj police station, inter alia, alleging that on receipt of an information through reliable sources regarding transportation of huge quantity of narcotic drugs near Dhruba parking, near Purana Dhaba, Chagolia by one Nur Hussain, one search team was constituted and a search operation was launched. During search operation, the petitioner Nur Hussain was apprehended and from him commercial quantity of Yaba tablets (6000 tablets) were recovered. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. J. Kalita, has submitted that the petitioner has been detained behind the bars for more than one year however, the trial has not been concluded. He submits that till date only five out of nine prosecution witnesses have been examined. He further submitted that all of the prosecution witnesses, except one, who have already been examined, have not implicated the present petitioner in this case. Only the informant, who has enmity with the present petitioner, has implicated him in the alleged offence. He submits that there is everylikelihood of the petitioner getting a judgment of acquittal in the trial which is going on. Hence, he submits that further detention of the petitioner would be violative of his fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 5. Under the above circumstances, the learned counsel for the Page No.# 3/4 petitioner has prayed for allowing the petitioner to go on bail. 6. On the other hand, Mr. K. K. Parasar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed in grant of bail to the present petitioner on the ground that the quantity of contraband seized in this case is commercial quantity, therefore, the embargo of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985 is applicable in this case. He further submits that there are sufficient incriminating materials against the petitioner on the records. He further submits that four more prosecution witnesses are yet to be examined, hence, merely because some of the witnesses have not implicated the petitioner at this stage, it cannot be presumed that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner is not guilty of the offence with which he has been charged. 7. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for both the sides and have perused the scanned copy of the records of Special Case No. 572/2024 which was requitioned in connection with this case. 8. Though the petitioner has been detained behind the bars since 02.07.2024 (for last more than one year), however, considering the commercial quantity of contraband recovered in this case, the said period cannot be regarded as long enough to give the petitioner benefit of bail on the ground of prolonged incarceration. 9. In the instant case, the quantity of contraband involved is commercial quantity and therefore, the embargo of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985 is applicable in this case. Unless the petitioner overcomes Page No.# 4/4 the said embargo, he will not be entitled to be released on bail in this case. 10. The informant in his deposition before the trial court, has categorically implicated the petitioner in commission of the alleged offence. Four more prosecution witnesses are yet to be examined. In the midst of trial, while considering bail application in the case involving commercial quantity of contraband, this Court cannot pick only those materials which are favourable to the petitioner and ignore the implicating materials against him at this stage. 11. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of considered opinion that due to the embargo of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985, the petitioner is not entitled to get bail, in this case, at this stage. 12. The instant bail application accordingly dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant