Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010149212025 2025:GAU-AS:9193 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2194/2025 PRADEEP KUMAR PAUL SON OF LATE SRI UPENDRA NARAYAN PAUL, R/O BAGARIVITTA, P.S. AND DIST. BONGAIGAON, ASSAM, PIN-783380 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A CHAMUAH, R BHUYAN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 16.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. A. Chamuah, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Sarma, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State of Assam. 2. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the case Page No.# 2/4 diary is not available and seeks some more time for producing the case diary. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the instant case, the petitioner has been arrested mainly for selling syringe without prescription which is neither an offence nor covered under any of the provision of NDPS Act, 1985. 4. The gist of accusation in this case is that on 19.06.2025 one Bhaskar Borah had lodged an FIR before the Officer-In-Charge of Bongaigaon Police Station, inter alia, alleging that on that day an information was received from a reliable source that one Tapash Chetry and his mother are indulged in selling prohibited drugs to unknown persons. Accordingly, a search team was constituted and residence of the Tapash Chetri was searched. During search operation, some empty plastic containers, insulin syringe and 9 numbers of SPM PRX capsules suspected to be psychotropic substance and some other articles were recovered from the house of the said Tapash Chetri. It is also alleged that 6.64 gms of heroine was also recovered during search operation. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has not been named in the FIR and he is a salesman and working at “Matri Medical Hall” near New Bongaigaon Cinema Hall. He submits that the accusation against him is that the main accused Tapash Chetri bought some syringe from the present petitioner without prescription which were recovered from the possession of Tapash Chetry. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the no narcotic drugs nor psychotropic was Page No.# 3/4 recovered from the possession of the present petitioner and syringe is not included as either narcotic drug or psychotropic substance within the purview of NDPS Act, 1985. He also submits that even under Drugs and Cosmetic Act which provides for inclusion of certain medical devices within the definition of “drugs” under Section 3(b)(iv), “drug” does not include “syringe” which is otherwise a medical device. 6. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that syringe is not included within the definition of “Narcotic Drugs” or “Psychotropic Substance” in the NDPS Act, 1985, however, in the instant case, the petitioner was facilitating the use of narcotic drugs by the co-accused persons by selling the syringe without any prohibition. He further submits that Deputy Commissioner of a district can limit the sale of syringe without prescription to a specific number. 7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides. Apparently, it appears that there is no accusation against the petitioner of possessing, selling, purchasing, transporting, importing etc. any narcotic drugs and psychotropic substance. The instant case has been registered under Sections 21(b)/22(A) of the NDPS Act, 1985. Even there is no accusation of abatement or criminal conspiracy against the present petitioner in this case. As the syringe which the petitioner is accused of selling to other co-accused persons without proscription, does not come within the purview of “narcotic drugs” or “psychotropic substance”, under NDPS Act, 1985, further custodial detention of the petitioner in this case is not justified. Page No.# 4/4 8. Accordingly, the petitioner namely, Pradeep Kumar Paul is allowed to go on bail of Rs. 30,000/-(Rupees Thirty Thousand only) with a suitable surety of like amount, subject to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, Bongaigaon, Assam with following conditions that:- (i) the petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation; and (ii) the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to the informant or to any other person who may be acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade such person from disclosing such facts before the Investigating Officer or to any Court. 9. With the above observations, this bail application is accordingly disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant