Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010262302024 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./3760/2024 BITUL SENAPATI S/O SRI JIURAM SENAPATI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MERKATHANI, PO AND PS GHILAMARA, DIST LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM 787053 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY PP ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR A N IQBAL, R HAQUE,MR. A NAYAK,MR S BORTHAKUR Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 04.03.2025 1. Heard Mr. S. Borthakur, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. K. Das, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. 2. This application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 has been filed by the Page No.# 2/3 petitioner, namely, Bitul Senapati, who has been detained behind the bars since 08.10.2024 in connection with Biswanath P. S. Case No. 180/2024 under Section 20(b)(ii)(C)/29 of the NDPS Act, 1985. 3. The gist of accusation in this case is that on 06.10.2024, one Razdeep Newar had lodged an FIR before the Officer-in-Charge of Biswanath Police Station, inter-alia, alleging that on receipt of information through reliable sources regarding movement of a vehicle with large quantity of Ganja, a naka checking was arranged near Sadharu Sub at about 11.30 a.m., and one vehicle bearing Registration No. AS007BC5712 was intercepted. When the said vehicle was directed to be stopped, the driver of the vehicle fled away. 4. During the search of the said vehicle, 314.68 kgs of Ganja was recovered. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is not involved in this case. 6. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though, the petitioner has been shown as the registered owner of the seized vehicle, however, the vehicle was given on hire to one Abhijit Kakoti and he is not aware of the fact that the seized vehicle was the utilized for carrying contraband. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that apart from the fact that the petitioner happens to be the registered owner of the seized vehicle, there is no other material to implicate him in this case. 8. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent has vehemently opposed the grant of bail for the present petitioner on the ground that there are sufficient incriminating materials against the present petitioner in the case diary. Page No.# 3/3 9. He also submits that the driver of the vehicle is yet to be apprehended and after his arrest many facts may be revealed and therefore, he opposes the grant of bail for the present petitioner. 10. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent and have gone through the case diary of Biswanath P. S. Case No. 180/2024. The contraband seized in this case is of commercial quantity and, therefore, apparently the embargo of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985 is applicable in this case. 11. In the instant case, it also appears that the petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle from which the seized contraband was found and the driver of the vehicle is yet to be apprehended. 12. Considering the incriminating materials against the petitioner in the case diary as well as the embargo contained in Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985, this Court is of the considered opinion that at this stage, the petitioner has failed to overcome the embargo of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985 and hence, this is not a fit case for grant bail for the petitioner. 13. Send back the case diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant