Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010272682024 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./3896/2024 YEAHIYA AHMED S/O ABDUS SUBUR, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KHUNDRAKANDI, PO KALIGANJ BAZAR, PS AND DIST KARIMGANJ, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY PP ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR Z RAHMAN, MR. A M KHAN,MR S PRODHANI Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER Date : 21.01.2025 Heard Mr. H.R.A. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. Z. Rahman, learned counsel for the accused. Also heard Mr. B. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. 2. This petition, under Section 483, BNSS, is preferred by accused, namely, Page No.# 2/4 Yeahiya Ahmed, who has been languishing in jail hazot in connection with Hatigaon P.S. Case No. 255/2024, under Sections 21(b)/22(c)/29 of the NDPS Act, for grant of bail. 3. The aforementioned case has been registered on the basis of an FIR lodged by SI(P) Bibek Bezboruah of Dispur P.S. on 13.11.2024. The essence of allegation against the present accused is that acting on a tip off, the informant, along with other staff, conducted search in the Central Guest House located at Naharani Path, under Hatigaon P.S. and apprehended four persons, namely, Md. Hasu Miya, Amina Khatun, Akmal Hussain and Yeahiya Ahmed, and recovered ten thousand suspected Yaba tablets and eleven grams of suspected heroin from their possession and seized the same in presence of witnesses. 4. Mr. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel for the accused submits that the accused is an employee of Central Guest House and by virtue of his employment, he was present at the guest house, and that he is no way involved with the offence alleged in the FIR and nothing has been recovered from his possession, and therefore, it is contended to allow the petition. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has produced the case diary before this Court and submits that the I.O. has collected sufficient incriminating materials against the accused, and that the contraband substances so recovered from the possession of the accused, are of commercial quantity, and nothing has been shown to satisfy the twin requirements of Section 37 of the NDPS Act that he is not guilty of the offence and that he will not commit any offence while on bail, and therefore, it is contended to dismiss the petition. 6. Having heard the submissions of learned Advocates of both sides, I have Page No.# 3/4 carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record and also perused the case diary with the assistance of Mr. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 7. It appears that the I.O. has collected sufficient incriminating materials against the accused, who was very much present at the Central Guest House, from where the suspected contraband substances were recovered and seized. Further, it appears that the contraband substances, so recovered from the possession of the accused, are of commercial quantity and as such, there is a requirement for satisfying the twin conditions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. In the case of Union of India vs. Ajay Kumar Singh @ Pappu, in Criminal Appeal No. 952 of 2023 [arising out of SLP (CRL.) No. 2351 of 2023], Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that: “In view of the above provisions, it is implicit that no person accused of an offence involving trade in commercial quantity of narcotics is liable to be released on bail unless the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such an offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.” 8. But, in the instant case, from a perusal of the case diary and also from the submission of Mr. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel for the accused, this Court is unable to derive satisfaction that the accused is not guilty of the offence and that he will not commit any offence while on bail. 9. It appears that investigation is going on and the offences are serious in nature, and under such circumstances, this Court is of the view that this is not a fit case where the privilege of bail can be granted to the accused at this stage and accordingly, this bail application stands dismissed. Page No.# 4/4 10. Case diary be returned. JUDGE Comparing Assistant