Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010245102025 2025:GAU-AS:16421 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./3635/2025 MD. EZAZUL HOQUE S/O- LT. GAJIBUR RAHMAN, VILL.- BORBHETI, P.S.- NAGAON SADAR, DIST.- NAGAON, ASSAM, PIN - 782122 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM. Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. J AHMED, R KHANOM,MR. R ISLAM,MS A HUSSAIN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA ORDER 01.12.2025 Heard Mr. J. Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for the accused applicant and Mr. K. K. Parasar, learned Addl. PP for the State of Assam. 2. This is an application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 praying for Page No.# 2/4 granting bail to the accused applicant in connection with NDPS Case No. 30/2025 pending in the Court of Special Judge, Morigaon under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of NDPS Act arising out of Jagiroad P.S. Case No. 55/2025 under Section 2 (b)(ii)(C)/29 of NDPS Act. 3. The allegation against the accused applicant as has been made in the FIR dated 12.03.2025 is that on receipt of certain confidential information, the Police personnel reached the spot wherefrom alleged bag of Ganja was recovered. On questioning the accused applicant, the accused applicant showed them 4 numbers of packets wrapped with black colour plastic, which contained the alleged Ganja. The police immediately seized those Ganja and arrested the accused applicant from the spot. Being weighed, the Ganja found to be weighed 20.200 Kg’s excluding the weight of the plastic bag weighing 625 gms. 4. On receipt the information, the aforesaid case i.e. Jagiroad P.S. Case No. 55/2025 under the aforementioned sections has been registered against the accused applicant. 5. Subsequently, the NDPS Case No. 30/2025 was registered before learned Special Judge, NDPS, Morigaon. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that while arresting the accused applicant, the mandates of Section 48 were not complied with and therefore, there is an apparent violation of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in several judicial pronouncements including the case of Vihaan Kumar-vs-State of Haryana & Another reported in 2025 SCC OnLine 269. He further submits that the quantity that has been seized is being little bit more than the commercial quantity, Page No.# 3/4 he should be given the privilege of bail, at this stage since the accused applicant has already spent more than 265 days in judicial custody. He has further referred to the case of Prabir Purkayastha-vs- State (NCT of Delhi) reported in (2024) 8 SCC 254 in support of his argument that the mandates of Section 48 were not complied with while arresting the accused applicant by the arresting authority. 7. On the other hand, Mr. K. K. Parasar, learned Addl. PP for the State submits that the amount which was seized is a commercial quantity. Therefore, rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act shall be applicable in the instant case and without this Court being convinced to dispense with the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS, the bail in the instant case may not be allowed. 8. This Court has gone through the scanned copy of the TCR that has been submitted before this Court. 9. It is seen from the records that the Ganja seized is more than 20 Kgs which is of a commercial quantity. It is also seen from the records that a notice under Section 48 was, in fact, given to one Rasidul Rahman supposedly, the brother of the accused applicant. 10. It is also seen that the grounds of arrest have been mentioned in Section 48 notice which contained the signature of the arrested person i.e. the accused application. 11. In view of the aforesaid findings, this is apparent that there is no violation of mandates of Section 48 of BNSS in the instant case while arresting the accused applicant. 12. Considering the entire aspect of the matter and having found that Page No.# 4/4 the mandates of Section 47, 48 & 36 of BNSS have been duly complied with in the case and since the seized Ganja is weighed more than 20 Kg, the rigors of Section 37 shall be applicable in the instant case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present application does not merit any bail at this stage. In view of the aforesaid directions, the instant bail application stands disposed of as rejected. JUDGE Comparing Assistant