Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010170402025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2513/2025 UTTAM NATH AND ANR SON OF LATE UPPENDRA NATH R/O VILL- ATI GAON P.O. AND P.S. BOKOLIYAGHAT DIST. KARBI ANGLONG, ASSAM 2: SRI SOFIOR RAHMAN @ SAFIUR RAHMAN S/O LATE OSMAN GONI R/O VILL- KALYANPUR P.O. AND P.S. BAGUAN DIST. GOALPARA ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. D A KAIYUM, N R HAQUE(P-1),U U KHAN(P-1),MR. A AHMED (P-1),MR. M S MONDAL Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Linked Case : Bail Appln./2704/2025 MD SAHABUDDIN ALI S/O SAIDUL RAHMAN R/O RAHA P.S. RAHA DIST. NAGAON ASSAM Page No.# 2/7 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM TO BE REP. BY THE PP ASSAM ------------ Advocate for : U U KHAN Advocate for : PP ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM Linked Case : Bail Appln./2518/2025 JIAUR RAHMAN ALIAS JIAYUR RAHMAN S/O- WAZED ALI R/O- VILL- JARABARI P.S HOWLY DIST- BARPETA ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP ASSAM ------------ Advocate for : Mr M U Ahmed Advocate for : PP ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 24.11.2025 1. By this common order, this Court proposes to dispose of three bail applications, namely, Bail Application No. 2513/2025, Bail Application No. 2518/2025 as well as Bail Application No. 2704/2025. 2. Heard Mr. A. Ahmed as well as Mr. D. A. Kaiyum, learned counsel for the petitioners in Bail Application No. 2513/2025, Mr. A. Ahmed, learned counsel Page No.# 3/7 for the petitioner in Bail Application No. 2704/2025 as well as Mr. U. U. Khan,learned counsel for the petitioner in Bail Application No. 2518/2025. Also heard Mr. K. K. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam. 3. The Bail Application No. 2513/2025 has been filed by the petitioners, namely, 1. Uttam Nath and 2. Sofior Rahman @ Safiur Rahman. The Bail Application No. 2704/2025 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Md. Sahabuddin Ali and the Bail Application No. 2518/2025 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Jiaur Rahman @Jiayur Rahman. 4. All the above named petitioners are detained behind the bars since 12.04.2025 in connection with North Guwahati P.S. Case No.36/2025 corresponding to NDPS Case No.54/2025 under Sections 25/21(C)/29 of the NDPS Act, 1985 pending before the Court of the learned Special Judge, Kamrup, Amingaon. 5. The gist of accusation in this case is that on 11.04.2025 one Hirak J. Mazumder, In-charge of Rani Police Outpost had lodged an FIR before the Officer-in-Charge of North Guwahati Police Station, inter alia, alleging that on receipt of an information through reliable sources that huge quantity of narcotic drugs would be transported from Aizawl to Guwahati in Bus No. AR-11-B-8912 by the driver and handyman of the bus in lieu of huge money. It was also alleged that the narcotic would be carried by one ‘carrywala’, namely, Jiaur Rahman of Howly who would supply the same to the different consumers at places like Amingaon, Baihata, Rangia, Hajo etc. 6. It is further stated in the FIR that on the basis of the input the police team was constituted and it found the said bus was parked at Inter-State Bus Terminals (ISBT), Guwahati and only the handyman was available. It is further Page No.# 4/7 stated in the FIR that thereafter the petitioner Md. Sahabuddin Ali was picked up from Hatigaon area and Jiaur Rahman was picked up from a lodge near ISBT and they were brought to the ISBT. Thereafter, during the search of the vehicle, approximately 455 grams of suspected heroin was found in 35 soapboxes from a pink colored bag kept in the backside of the bus. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case without there being any evidence on record against them. The learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the petitioners were arrested mainly on the basis of information received through some unidentified sources without there being any evidence against them on record. They further submit that nothing was seized from conscious possession of the present petitioners. It is further submitted that admittedly the recovery of contraband has been made from a passenger bus and there is nothing to show that pink colored bag from which the contraband was found belongs to any of the petitioners. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, namely,Md. Sahabuddin Ali, was not even there when the police team find the passenger bus parked at ISBT, Guwahati and he was picked up from his residence and brought to ISBT where the bus was parked. He further submits that the driver of a passenger bus and the handyman of a passenger carrying bus are not expected to know the contents of the luggage of the passengers and there is nothing in the record to indicate that they were aware about the contents of the pink colored bag from where the contraband was recovered. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, namely, Jiaur Rahman, is in no way connected with the offence alleged in the FIR. Apart from the mere allegation made against him in the FIR, there is no Page No.# 5/7 evidence on record to link him with the seizure made in connection with this case. 10. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has also fairly submitted that apart from the fact that recovery of the contraband was made from a pink colored bag which was found on the backside of the bus which is a passenger bus, there is nothing on record to link the recovered contraband with the petitioners except for the fact that the petitioners in Bail Application No. 2513/2025 are the handymen and the petitioner in Bail Application No. 2704/2025 is the driver of the said bus. He fairly submits that against petitioner of Bail Application No. 2518/2025, namely, Jiaur Rahman, there is nothing on record apart from the accusation made in the FIR. He submits that no effort has been made during the investigation to collect any evidence against the accused persons to implicate them in the case apart from mere recovery of the seized contraband from a parked passenger bus. 11. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and gone through the materials available on record, including the scanned copy of the records of NDPS Case No. 54/ 2025 along with the scanned copy of the connected case diary. 12. It is apparent that the recovery in this case has been made in a parked bus and that too was parked in Inter-State bus Terminals. The driver of the said bus was not there and he was brought to the spot before conducting search operation. Though, it appears that the seizure witnesses have stated that the contraband was recovered in this case from a pink coloured bag which was kept on the backside of the bus. However, there is no evidence on record to show that the bag belonged to any of the four petitioners or for that matter that they were aware about the content of the pink coloured bag. Page No.# 6/7 13. As regards the petitioner Jiaur Rahman is concerned, apart from the accusation made in the FIR which was on the basis of a secret information, there is no other material which implicates or which connects him with the seized contraband. 14. In an offence involving recovery of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substance under NDPS Act, mere recovery is not enough to implicate a person. Apart from the recovery of the contraband, the Investigating Officer is under an obligation to find out as to what materials are there to link the accused persons named in the FIR with the recovery. 15. Merely because accused Md. Sahabuddin Ali happens to be driver of a passenger carrying bus and accused Uttam Nath and Sofior Rahman @ Safiur Rahman happens to be handymen of the said bus, they are not supposed to know the contents of the bags found in the bus which does not belong to them and that too same was found in a parked bus as there is nothing on record to link the recovery of the seized contraband apart from the secret information received by the Investigating Officer. Further, there is also no material on record to testify the veracity of such secret information except the fact of recovery of the seized contraband. 16. Under the aforesaid condition, the embargo contained in Section 37(1) (b)(ii) of the NDPS Act, twin embargo of the NDPS Act will not be operative against any of the present petitioners as on the basis of inadequate material on record to link the recovery of the contraband to any of the present petitioners is sufficient for this Court to come to a conclusion that at least for the limited purpose of consideration of the bail applications, there are reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioners are not guilty of the offence alleged in this case. Page No.# 7/7 17. Further, there is no material regarding any criminal antecedent, therefore, there is also no likelihood of their committing any offence if they are released on bail. 18. In view of the discussions made hereinabove and reasons stated therein, all the above named petitioners are allowed to go on bail of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) only each with one surety of like amount, subject to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, NDPS, Kamrup, Amingaon with following conditions:- (i) That the petitioner 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 Trial Court; and (ii) That the petitioner shall co-operate in the trial. 19. These bail applications are accordingly disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant