Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010271862025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./4125/2025 MANIK CH DEBNATH SON OF HARADHON CH. DEBNATH. RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- SALGORA, PS- RADHA KRISHNA PUR. DIST.-GOMOTI, TRIPURA. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR H R CHOUDHURY, Z HUSSAIN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA ORDER Date : 03.02.2025 Heard Mr. H.R. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. Sarma, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. [2] This application has been filed by the petitioner namely, Manik Ch. Debnath under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, seeking regular bail in connection with Special N.D.P.S. Case No. Page No.# 2/4 46/2025 (arising out of Nilambazar P.S. Case No.66/2025) under Sections 21(c)/ 29 of the NDPS Act, pending in the Court of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sribhumi. [3] The allegations contained in the FIR is that on 14.05.2025 at about 10.30 a.m., a secret information was received by the Officer-in-Charge of Nilambazar Police Station that two women who were loitering near Station Road, Nilambazar were suspected to be carrying illegal narcotic contraband and same were being transported to Agartala via train, the S.I. Samar Barman lodged an FIR before the Officer-in-Charge, Nilambazar Police Station. A case was registered against the said two women vide Nilambazar P.S. Case No. 66/2025 under Sections 21(c/ 29 of the NDPS Act. On the basis of the information, a search was conducted and a huge quantity of heroin was recovered from their possession and the said two women were arrested by the police. In the course of investigation, on the basis of the statement of the aforesaid two arrested co-accused persons, the present petitioner has been arrested on the ground that seized contraband was to be delivered to the present petitioner. [4] The two arrested women were the mother-in-law and sister-in-law of the present petitioner. [5] The scanned copy of the TCR as called for is received and perused. [6] The charge sheet has already been submitted. [7] The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that from the above, it transpires that on the basis of the statement of the accused, the petitioner has been made an accused and the charge sheet has been submitted. [8] The statement of the co-accused as well as the CDR of the arrested Page No.# 3/4 persons reveal large number of phone calls between the petitioner and the two arrested co-accused persons, submitted by the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor. [9] In view of the settled position of law, the statement of the co- accused cannot be used to deny bail as held by the Apex Court in P. Krishna Mohan Reddy Vs. State of Andra Pradesh reported in 2025 Livelaw (SC) 498. In State By (NCB), Bengaluru Vs. Pallulabid Ahmed Arimutta & Another, reported in 2022 2 Scale 14 it has been held that the confessional/ voluntary statement of the respondent or the co-accused under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, cannot form the basis for overturning the impugned orders passed by the High Court releasing the petitioner on bail. The Court also held that the CDR details of some of the accused is a matter that will examine at the stage of trial of the case. [10] I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to get bail, inasmuch as, in the present case also, the petitioner has been arrested on the basis of the statement of the arrested co-accused persons and the CDR details. [11] It may be noted that there is no record of actual conversation between the accused persons and the petitioner. It also noticed in the fact that the accused persons are relatives and only because of their frequent talks between them, it would not be sufficient to implicate the petitioner that he is involved with the alleged offence. No recovery was made from the possession of the present petitioner. Hence, there is reasonable ground to believe that the petitioner is not guilty of the alleged offence and there is no material to show that he will indulge in similar offences is granted bail. [12] In view of the above as well as the fact that the petitioner has spent 179 days in custody and the investigation is complete, accordingly, the Page No.# 4/4 petitioner namely, Manik Ch. Debnath shall be released on bail on furnishing a bond of Rs. 1, 00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) with two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Court below in connection with the aforementioned case. [13] It is further provided that the petitioner shall participate in the trial and shall not try to influence any witnesses in any manner. [14] In terms of the above, this bail application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant