Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010154432025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1647/2025 SRI MRINAL PATHAK SON OF SHRI HORI MOHAN PATHAK R/O VILL- BHAWANIPUR, P.O. BHAWANIPUR, P.S. PATACHARKUCHI, DIST. BARPETA, ASSAM, PIN-781352. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR B M DEKA, MR. J N SUWAI,MR GULSHAN F HOQUE Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 06.08.2025 1. Heard Mr. B.M. Deka, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard K.K. Parasar, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State of Assam. Page No.# 2/5 2. This application under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Shri Mrinal Pathak, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Bazaricherra P.S. Case No. 33/2024 under Sections 22(C)/ 25 of the N.D.P.S. Act., 1985. 3. The gist of accusation in this case is that on 14.02.2025, one S.I. Pranab Milli of Churaibari W.P.under Bazaricherra Police Station had lodged an FIR before the Officer-in-Charge of Bazaricherra Police Station, inter alia, alleging that during naka duty, a truck bearing registration 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 stropped, the driver of the said truck had fled away from there 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 though the petitioner is still the registered owner of the seized truck, however, he had already sold the said truck to one Saddam Hussain and has also handed over the possession of the said truck to said Saddam Hussain. Therefore, the petitioner is not aware of about what was being carried in the said truck as he is no longer in the possession of the said truck. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has received a notice under Section 67 of the N.D.P.S. Act from the I.O. and as the non-bailable provision of law under the N.D.P.S. Act has been involved in this case, he apprehends that if he appears before the I.O., without any protection, he may be arrested. He also submits that petitioner is ready to cooperate in Page No.# 3/5 the investigation. 6. On the other hand Mr. K.K. Parasar, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has produced the case diary of Bazaricherra P.S. Case No. 33/2024 and has submitted that the contraband seized in the case is covered the commercial quantity and the embargo of Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 is applicable in this case. He also submits that as the driver of the seized truck could not be arrested till date and as the petitioner is the registered owner of the seized truck, only the investigation would reveal regarding his complicity in the alleged offence in this case. 7. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for both the parties and I have gone through the case diary of Bazaricherra P.S. Case No. 33/2024. 8. 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 said 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. 9. It appears that one of the co-accused people namely Saddam Hussain has already been granted bail by this court on 31.07.2025 in AB No. 1575/2025 and the said Saddam Hussain has admitted that he has purchased the seized truck from the present petitioner. Thus, at this stage, apart from the fact that the petitioner still happens to be the registered owner of the seized truck and as the transfer of the registration certificate Page No.# 4/5 has not yet been done, there is no other materials in the case diary to indicate that the present petitioner has been involved in any manner in carrying the seized contraband by the said truck, which was recovered. 10. Merely, being the owner of the vehicle in which the contraband was recovered without there being any material to indicate that the complicity of the present petitioner in the alleged offence would not be sufficient to invoke the embargo of Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985. 11. Under the aforesaid circumstances, this court is of the considered opinion that from the material available in the case dairy, the embargo of Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act will not be applicable to the petitioner in this case at this stage. 12. The anticipatory bail application is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to appear before the Investigating Officer of Bazaricherra P.S. Case No. 33/2024 within a period of 7 days from today and cooperate in the investigation. If he does so within the stipulated period of time, in the event of his arrest in connection with Bazaricherra P.S. Case No. 33/2024, he shall be allowed to go on bail of Rs. 50,000/- with 2 suitable sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting authority with following conditions that:- (ii) 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 or to any court; and (ii) the petitioner shall co-operate in the investigation. Page No.# 5/5 13. The bail application is accordingly disposed of. 14. Send back the case diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant