Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010144472025 2025:GAU-AS:12731 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2148/2025 HABIB AHMED S/O- NOIMUL HOQUE. R/O-VILL.- KANAKPUR. P.O. AND P.S.- NILAMBAZAR. DIST.- SRIBHUMI, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR H R CHOUDHURY, Z HUSSAIN,MS G TALUKDAR Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER 16.09.2025 1. Heard learned counsel Mr. H. R. Choudhury for the petitioner Habib Ahmed who has filed this application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 with prayer for bail in connection with Special (NDPS) Case No. 122/2021 arising out of Page No.# 2/4 Nilambazar Police Station Case No. 432/2021 under Sections 22(C)/25/29 of the NDPS Act pending at the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge. 2. Heard Mr. K. Baishya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent State. 3. It is submitted that in compliance with the order of this Court, the petitioner surrendered before the Trial Court, but the petitioner was forwarded to custody. The petitioner has prayed for bail on the grounds of parity as 7 out of 8 accused are enlarged on bail. It is submitted that in their statements under Section 161 of the Cr.PC, 6 witnesses have not at all implicated the petitioner, but charges were framed. It is further submitted that the contraband was not recovered from the possession of the petitioner, but was recovered from the possession of Samsul Noor and Abdul Basit in their house. The petitioner has prayed before this court to take into consideration his conduct. 4. It is submitted that the petitioner could have escaped, but he, in compliance of the order of his court, surrendered before the Trial Court and now he is being incarcerated. He has further submitted that the police did not conduct any search against the petitioner during the investigation. 5. On the contrary, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has raised serious objection stating that 7.595 kgs of Yaba tablets + 1.105 kgs of Yaba tablets as well as 24.155 kgs of Yaba tablets were recovered in connection with this case.The petitioner is a prime accused and he is the mastermind of transportation of the entire contraband. 6. During the stage of investigation, the petitioner's role has come to light and finally charge-sheet was submitted against him. Initially, the witnesses did not adduced evidence against him, but during the investigation, it was uncovered Page No.# 3/4 that the petitioner is deeply involved in transportation of contraband and he is the kingpin. 7. The grounds of parity cannot be considered in this case as the other accused persons were enlarged on bail. 8. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in The State of Karnataka vs. Sri Darshan etc, reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 1702, wherein it has been observed that:- “ 20.1.4. In Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana, it was reiterated that Article 22(1) is satisfied if the accused is made aware of the arrest grounds in substance, even if not conveyed in writing. Similarly, in Kasireddy Upender Reddy v State of Andhra Pradesh, it was observed that when arrest is made pursuant a warrant, reading out the warrant amounts to sufficient compliance. Both these post- Pankaj Bansal decisions clarify that written, individualised grounds are not an inflexible requirement in all circumstances. 20.1.5. While Section 50 Cr. P.C is mandatory, the consistent judicial approach has been to adopt a prejudice-oriented test when examining alleged procedural lapses. The mere absence of written grounds does not ipso facto render the arrest illegal, unless it results in demonstrable prejudice or denial of a fair opportunity to defend. 20.2.1. It is a settled principle that at the bail stage, courts are precluded from undertaking a detailed examination of evidence or rendering findings that touch upon the merits of the case. Only a prima facie assessment of the material is warranted. The court cannot conduct a mini-trial or record conclusions that could influence the outcome of the trial. 20.4.2. In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v Rajesh Ranjan (supra), this Court categorically held that: "The High Court could not have allowed the bail application on the sole ground of delay in the conclusion of the trial without taking into consideration the allegation made by the prosecution in regard to the existence of prima facie case, gravity of offence, and the allegation of tampering with the witness by threat and inducement when on bail…. non-consideration of the same and grant of bail solely on the ground of long incarceration vitiated the order... 22.1.1. In Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh, this Court held that "the nature of the offence is one of the basic considerations for the grant of bail the more heinous the crime, the greater the chance of refusal of bail, though the exercise of judicial discretion in such matters cannot be exhaustively defined. “ Page No.# 4/4 9. Reverting back to this case, it is held in this instant case too, at this juncture, evidence is not taken into consideration. The culmination of the offence into charge-sheet is taken into consideration. Charge-sheet has been laid in connection with a heinous offence when sufficient grounds were found against the petitioner. 10. At this juncture, it appears that the petitioner is not entitled to bail. The rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act fetters the bail application. 11. In view of my foregoing discussions, petition stands rejected at this stage. 12. In terms of the above observation, bail application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant