Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010220232025 2025:GAU-AS:13801 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./3236/2025 MINARUL HOQUE S/O LATE NURUL HOQUE RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DOLBARI, PS MORIGAON, DISTRICT- MORIGAON, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR J C BORAH, Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS ORDER 15.10.2025 1. Heard Mr. J.C Borah, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. This application has been filed under section 483 of the Page No.# 2/3 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraskha Sanhita, 2023, whereby the accused petitioner namely, 1. Minarul Hoque, has prayed for bail in connection with Morigaon P.S Case No. 353/2024, registered under Section 22 (C) of the NDPS Act, 1985. 3. The prescribed statutory period for commercial quantity is 180 days, which is further extendable up to 1 year by the Special Court on a report of the P.P. 4. Referring to the impugned order dated 26.06.2025, the primary contention is that the extension was made after the expiry of 180 days and solely based on the report of the I.O. 5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State submits that instructions could not be obtained but from the materials and the impugned order, it appears that the order was passed merely on the report of the I.O. 6. Upon perusing the impugned order, I find that it is stated therein that statutory period was over on 25.06.2025 and charge- sheet has not been submitted. From the order, it is also revealed that the I.O had filed report on 25.06.2025. 7. As per the relevant provisions of Section 36A(4) proviso of the NDPS Act - such extension has to be based upon the report of the Public Prosecutor and it is well settled that the report of the I.O is not a substitute for the statutorily mandated report of the Public Prosecutor. Therefore, in my considered view, the extension was not legally correct and consequently, the present accused had become entitled to default bail at that time. Page No.# 3/3 8. In such view of the matter, the above-named accused petitioner is allowed to go on bail of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) only with one surety of like amount subject to the satisfaction of the concerned learned Court with following conditions: (i) That he shall be available for trial; (ii) That he shall not misuse his liberty to commit any illegal activities or offence ; (iii) That he shall not hamper or tamper with evidence. 9. Violation of bail conditions might entail cancellation of the bail. 10. With the above observations, this bail petition stands allowed and stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant