Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010149232025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1575/2025 SADDAM HUSSAIN S/O SAMED ALI R/O VILL AND P.O. GORAIMARI, P.S. AND DIST. BONGAIGAON, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M KHAN, MS J AKTAR Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 31.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. M. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. K. Parasar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. This application under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Saddam Hussain, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Bazaricherra P.S. Case No. 33/2024 under Sections 22(c)/25 of the NDPS Act, 1985. Page No.# 2/4 3. The gist of accusation in this case is that on 14.02.2024 one Pranab Mili had lodged an FIR before the Officer-in-charge of Bazaricherra Police Station, inter alia, alleging that during naka duty, a truck bearing No. AS-28-AC-0530 was intercepted at naka checking point at Churaibari WP at N.H. No. 8 and when the said truck was stooped the driver of the said truck fled away from their taking advantage of heavy traffic at that place. During search of the said truck, 17,800 bottles Cough Syrup containing Codeine Phosphate was recovered therefrom. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had purchased the second hand truck bearing Registration No. AS-28-AC-0530 (the seized truck) from one Mrinal Pathak at a consideration amount of Rs.5,80,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh Eighty Thousand) which is under higher purchase with Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited. He submits that the petitioner has engaged one Mohidul Ali Kha, S/o- Johar Ali Kha of Goraimari, Bongaigaon as driver in the said vehicle and the vehicle handed over to him. 5. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that on 10.02.2024, the said driver informed the petitioner that he is coming from Delhi and the said truck is loaded with onion and is moving towards Silchar. However, after a week, the petitioner came to know that on 14.02.2024, the driver left the aforesaid vehicle stranded at naka checking point at National Highway No. 8 and a police case has been registered. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was unaware about carrying of contraband by the driver of the said truck and he is in no way involved in the offence alleged in the FIR. He further submits that the petitioner is ready to co-operate in the investigation. 7. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has produced the case diary of Bazaricherra P.S. Case No. 33/2024 and has opposed the grant of bail Page No.# 3/4 on the ground that the contraband seized in this case is of commercial quantity, therefore, the embargo of Section 37 of the NDPS Act is applicable to this case. He further submits that the petitioner has admitted that he is owner of the said vehicle and the driver of the vehicle is yet to be apprehended. Under such circumstances, he opposes the grant of bail to the present petitioner. 8. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and have perused the case diary of Bazaricherra P.S. Case No. 33/2024 which has been produced by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 9. It appears from the case diary that though the FIR in this case was registered on 14.02.2024 i.e., more than one year five months ago and the driver of the seized vehicle has not yet been arrested and it would be the driver only who may give information regarding involvement of other co-accused persons. 10. Presently, it also appears that the registered owner of the said vehicle is not the present petitioner, but one Mrinal Pathak. 11. Apart from the fact that the petitioner had purchased the said vehicle from Mrinal Pathak, there is no other material to indicate that the present petitioner was involved in any manner in carrying of the seized contraband in the truck which was purchased by him. 12. Merely, being the owner of the vehicle in which the contraband was recovered without there being any material to indicate the complicity of present petitioner in the alleged offence would not be sufficient to invoke the embargo of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985. 13. In this case, there is no other incriminating material against the petitioner except the fact that he had purchased the seized truck from its earlier purchaser, Mrinal Pathak at this stage, in the investigation. Page No.# 4/4 14. This anticipatory bail application is disposed of with a direction to the above named petitioner to appear before the Investigating Officer of Bazaricherra P.S. Case No. 33/2024 within ten days from the date of this order and co-operate in the investigation. If he does so within the stipulated period of time, in the event of his arrest, in connection with the aforesaid case, he shall be allowed to go on bail of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) with two sureties of like amount subject to the satisfaction of the arresting authority with following conditions:- (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; 15. This anticipatory bail application is accordingly disposed of. 16. Send back the case diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant