Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010208622025 2025:GAU-AS:14473 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./3015/2025 GEETA DEVI ALIAS MASI ALIAS GITA DEVI W/O LT. BIJOY SAHANI RESIDENT OF LANKA RAIL GATE NO 1, WARD NO 1, PS LANKA, PO LANKA, DISTRICT HOJAI, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE LEARNED PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : TAWHID LASKAR, ASHRAFUL BORBHUYAN,MR. D K AGARWALA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS O R D E R 29.10.2025 Heard Mr. T. Laskar, learned counsel for the accused petitioner as well as Page No.# 2/4 Mr. D.P. Goswami, learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State respondent. 2. This application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Geeta Devi @ Masi @ Gita Devi, seeking regular bail in connection with Lanka P.S. Case No.182/2025, registered under Sections 21(b)/27A of the NDPS Act. The accused was stated to be arrested on 24.08.2025 and since then, he was in judicial custody. 3. The case arose out of the FIR dated 24.08.2025. The gist of the allegation is that a source information was received that the accused was dealing with narcotic drugs, whereupon a search operation was carried out and suspected heroin totalling 11.91 grms was found in her premises along with 105 nos. of small plastic vials containing suspected heroin; 26 nos. of empty plastic vials and cash of Rs.95,000/-. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the son of the petitioner is a co-accused in this case and another case and that she is a widow, living with her son and therefore, she has been wrongly implicated in this case. 5. The case diary was called for and has been received. 6. The learned Addl. P.P. submits that the investigation has found sufficient incriminating materials against the petitioner, including the materials pertaining to the alleged offence of financing drug trafficking punishable under Section 27(A) of the NDPS Act, which has been given in the instant case. 7. The case diary has been placed before this Court. 8. It is also submitted by the learned Addl. P.P. that the petitioner has been found to be a habitual offender with particulars of cases against her with available materials being Lanka P.S. Case No.358/2022, Lanka P.S. Case No.2/2023 Dillai P.S. Case No. 21/2020 under the NDPS Act. Out of which, Dillai Page No.# 3/4 P.S. Case No. 21/20 pertains to provision governing commercial quantity under the NDPS Act. 9. I have gone through the relevant portions of the case diary and considered the submissions of both the sides. It is stated in the FIR that the petitioner was caught red handed at the time of the search, transferring suspected heroin from soap box to small vials. The same finds support from the statements of the witnesses and the seizure witnesses have cogently supported about the seizure of the alleged contraband from the petitioner. 10. Under Section 37 NDPS Act - offences under NDPS Act pertaining to Section 19 or 24 or 27A or offences involving in commercial quantity - granting of bail is contingent upon the fulfilment of two essential conditions no:- (1) the prosecution has to be given a notice and when the prosecutor opposes the bail, the Court will be able to grant bail only if it is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for beliving in that the accused is not guilty and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. If the test of these factors is not passed in favour of the accused in a case where Section 37 is applicable - the Court will be statutory prohibited from granting bail. The applicability of Article 21 of the Constitution at the subsequent stage will be another matter. 11. Coming back to the instant case, apart from the seizure of the suspected heroin which however falls is the bracket of intermediate quantity - I find force in the contention of the learned Addl. P.P. that there are materials with regard to Section 27A as well. The witnesses have stated about the petitioner using her money to conduct peddling of narcotic drugs. The recovery of Rs.95,000/- from her at the time of seizure of the contraband is also been supported by the witnesses. The details previous cases under the NDPS Act including one under commercial quantity, have also been provided in the materials. Therefore, on Page No.# 4/4 the basis these materials revealed by the investigation - it is not possible to hold that there is no reasonable ground to say that she is not guilty. Moreover, in the context of the materials pertaining to previous cases, it will also be difficult to hold that she will not commit any offence while on bail, which is also one of the essential conditions for passing the test of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. 12. Consequently, I come to the considered opinion that on the basis of the materials of this case, the test of Section 37 of the NDPS Act is not passed in favour of the accused. Therefore, at this stage the Court will be statutorily barred from granting bail. 13. Consequently, the bail petition stands rejected, at this stage. 14. Return back the case diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant