Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010231682025 2025:GAU-AS:15179 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./3403/2025 RATNESWAR DEBNATH S/O- LT. DOLI RAM DEBNATH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE ATIYABARI, PS SAPATGRAM, DISTRICT DHUBRI, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR D C NATH, MR. M MONDAL Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA ORDER 10.11.2025 1. Heard Mr. B. Gogoi, learned counsel for the accused applicant. Also heard Mr. K.K. Parasar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. This application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the accused applicant, namely, Ratneswar Debnath, praying for grant of bail in connection with Sapatgram P.S Case No.52/2025 registered under Section 20(b)(ii)(B)/25 of NDPS Act. 3. The allegation against the accused applicant in the FIR dated 12.09.2025, which was lodged by S.I namely, Dipjyoti Malakar before the Officer-in-Charge, Sapatgram Police Station that on receipt of secret information, the police recovered a huge quantity of ganja i.e. weighing of 7.432 gms from a house belonging to the accused applicant which was newly built by the accused applicant. 4. On such recovery, the accused applicant was arrested by the I.O and accordingly, Sapatgram P.S Case No.52/2025 was registered under the aforementioned Sections. 5. The learned counsel for the accused applicant submits that he is no way connected with the seized ganja as he was totally unaware as who had kept the aforesaid quantity of ganja in his Page No.# 3/4 newly built house wherein, he was, in fact, not residing. 6. The learned counsel for the accused applicant submits that the quantity so seized by the police is of intermediate quantity and he is already in judicial custody for 59 days. Therefore, considering the above aspect, he prays that the instant bail application of the accused applicant should be allowed with such conditions as this Court may deem fit and proper. 7. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State submits that though case diary in the instant case was called for including the FCL report, the same is yet to be received and at this stage, without perusing the case diary, the instant bail application should not be allowed. 8. This Court has gone through the materials brought before this Court as well as heard the submissions made by the respective counsels appearing for the parties. 9. After taking into consideration the entire matter, including that the accused applicant has already spent 59 days in judicial custody, this Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case wherein the privilege of bail should be granted to the accused applicant. 10. In view of the aforesaid prima-facie finding, it is directed that the above-named accused applicant shall be released forthwith from jail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) only with one surety of like nature subject to the satisfaction of the Court of learned Special Judge (NDPS), Bilasipara with following conditions: Page No.# 4/4 (i) That the accused applicant shall co-operate with the investigation as and when required; (ii) That the accused applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person who may be acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade such person from disclosing such facts of the case before the Investigating Officer; (iii) That the accused applicant shall not hamper or tamper with evidence. 11. In view of the aforesaid, this bail application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant