Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010153942025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1627/2025 NAZIR KAZI ALIAS BOGA SON OF AFTAS ALI R/OP GOG, P.S. BAIHATA CHARIALI, DIST. KAMRUP, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR U PANDEY, Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 05.09.2025 1. Heard Mr. A. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. K. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. This application under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Nazir Kazi @ Boga, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Baihata Chariali P.S. Case No. 61/2025 under Section 22(c) of the NDPS Act, 1985. Page No.# 2/3 3. The gist of accusation in this case is that on 06.03.2025, one Daisy Nath, SI of Police of Baihata Chariali Police Station had lodged an FIR before the Officer-in-charge of Baihata Chariali Police Station, inter alia, alleging that an information was received through reliable sources that the petitioner has kept huge quantity of cough syrup for selling in his Alto Car and scooty. Accordingly, a team of police was constituted and it rushed to the house of the present petitioner. It is stated in the FIR that when the police team reached the house of the petitioner, they noticed one person running away from the house on seeing the police party and later on it was found that the said person was the petitioner. During search of the house of the petitioner, some cough syrups were found kept under the bed, in the kitchen of the house as well as inside the dicky of the Maruti Suzuki vehicle bearing Registration No. AS-01-AK-4465. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that nothing was found from the conscious possession of the petitioner as the petitioner was not there at the time when search was made in his house. He further submits that the identity of the petitioner as the person fleeing away from the house on seeing the police is also not true. He submits that the petitioner's name has been incorporated by the police in the FIR as earlier also one case, i.e., Baihata Chariali P.S. Case No. 161/2022 is pending against the petitioner. He submits that there is no material to corroborate that it was the petitioner, who flew away from the place of search on seeing the police. He therefore submits that this is a fit case to grant of bail to the petitioner. 5. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in this case and has produced the case diary of Baihata Chariali P.S. Case No. 61/2025 and Page No.# 3/3 has submitted that the contraband seized in this case is of commercial quantity and, therefore, the embargo of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985 is applicable in this case. He also submits that there are sufficient materials in the case diary to indicate that seized contraband was recovered from the house of the petitioner and it was the petitioner who fled away therefrom on seeing the police. He has submitted that in view of the incriminating materials against the petitioner in the case diary, this is not a fit case to grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and have gone through the case diary. 7. On perusal of the case diary, it appears that there are sufficient materials indicating that the seized contraband, which is of commercial quantity, was recovered from the house of the present petitioner and there are also materials to indicate that the petitioner fled away from his house on seeing the police. 8. Under such circumstances, the embargo of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985 is squarely applicable to this case. This Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has failed to overcome the said embargo. Hence, this is not a fit case where anticipatory bail may be granted to the petitioner. 9. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected. 10. Send back the case diary. 11. This anticipatory bail application is accordingly disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant