Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010265412025 2025:GAU-AS:16596 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./3880/2025 BASIT AHMED S/O ABDUL SOHID, R/O AMBARI, P.S. MURAJHAR, DISTRICT HOJAI, ASSAM. -782442 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. JUNM LASKAR, Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA ORDER 03.12.2025 Heard Mr. JUNM Laskar, learned counsel appearing for the accused – applicant. Also heard Mr. K.K. Parasar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. This is an application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 praying for bail of the accused – applicant, namely, Basit Ahmed in connection with Special (NDPS) Page No.# 2/3 Case No. 46/2025 arising out of Murajhar P.S. Case No. 81/2025 under Section 22(c)/29 of the NDPS Act pending before the District and Sessions Judge, Hojai. 3. The gist of the allegation as alleged in the FIR dated 22.05.2025 is that on receipt of certain reliable information, upon search, the Police had recovered 38 packets of suspected Yaba tablets of total weight of 833.80 grams from a Nano vehicle. It was alleged that the Police had recovered the aforesaid contraband materials when the accused – applicant along with two other persons were standing beside the aforesaid Nano vehicle. On receipt of the FIR, the Murajhar P.S. Case No. 81/2025 under Section 22(c)/29 of the NDPS Act was registered against the accused – applicant. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the accused – applicant submits that the accused – applicant was arrested on 23.05.2025. He further submits that the accused – applicant was in fact granted interim bail on 22.09.2025 by the learned Court of Special Judge (NDPS), Hojai, however, he had to surrender again as condition imposed by the aforesaid order on 03.10.2025 and since then, he is behind the bars. The learned counsel appearing for the accused – applicant submits that since he has duly complied with the condition imposed vide order dated 22.09.2025 and had already spent 166 days behind the bars, further detention of the accused – applicant may not be required and he should be allowed to go on bail. 5. Mr. K.K. Parasar, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing for the State, on the other hand, submits that huge quantity of narcotic drugs have been recovered from the accused – applicant which is of commercial quantity. Therefore, rigors of Section 37 will be applicable. At this stage, he submits that the bail to the accused – applicant should not be granted. Page No.# 3/3 6. This Court has gone through the materials brought before this Court as well as the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. It is seen from the FIR that the amount of narcotic drug seized is much more than the prescribed commercial quantity as per the NDPS Act and therefore, the mandates of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are squarely applicant to the instant case. Further, since no ground could be made out by the learned counsel appearing for the accused - applicant for dispensing with the applicability of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, this Court does not find any merit in the instant bail application. 7. In view of the aforesaid, this bail application is disposed of as rejected. JUDGE Comparing Assistant