Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010240112025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./3553/2025 ROKEY DEBNATH S/O RANJIT DEBNATH R/O GOBINDA PALLY, PO AND PS HOJAI, DIST HOJAI, ASSAM, PIN-782435 VERSUS STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE LEARNED PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : TAWHID LASKAR, MR. D K AGARWALA,ASHRAFUL BORBHUYAN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA ORDER Date : 14.11.2025 Heard Mr. T. Lahkar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused- applicant. Also heard Mr. K. K. Parasar, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, representing the State respondent. 2. This is an application filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, praying for Page No.# 2/3 granting bail to the accused-applicant in connection with Hojai P.S. Case No. 265/2025, registered under Sections 21(b)/27(A) of the NDPS Act, 1985. 3. The allegation against the accused-applicant in the FIR dated 26.08.2025, is that the accused-applicant was apprehended by the police personnel on suspecting him to be involved in drug peddling and on a search being made on his body, the police recovered 28.2 grams of suspected heroin in some plastic bags. Accordingly, the aforementioned case was registered against the accused-applicant. The accused-applicant was arrested on the same date i.e., 26.08.2025 and since then, for the last 80 days, the accused-applicant is inside the jail. 4. The learned counsel for the accused-applicant submits that the accused-applicant is not linked to any kind of financing or peddling drugs. The learned counsel submits that the accused-applicant is a daily wage earner and does not have sufficient money to buy that amount of drugs and that he has been falsely implicated in the instant case. The learned counsel submits that since the accused-applicant is already inside the jail custody for the last 80 days, he should be allowed to go on bail at this stage. 5. On the other hand, the learned Addl. P.P. submits that the suspected contraband substance was, in fact, seized from the possession of the accused-applicant and his involvement is also apparent. The learned counsel further submits that in the statement recorded before the police, the accused-applicant had admitted his involvement in drug trafficking and that he is a drug addict. In view of the aforesaid, the learned counsel submits that this is not a fit case, wherein, the accused-applicant could be granted bail. 6. This Court has gone through the materials available on record and also heard the submissions of the learned counsel for both the parties. 7. Taking the whole facts in entirety and specially taking into account the fact that he has been inside the judicial custody for the last 80 days and the quantity seized is not of commercial quantity, this Court is of the view that further custodial detention of the Page No.# 3/3 accused-applicant in the instant case is not called for. Accordingly, the accused-applicant is directed to be released forthwith on furnishing of bail bond of Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand) with surety of like nature to the satisfaction of the Court of learned District & Sessions Judge, Hojai, subject to the following conditions:- (1) That the accused-applicant shall appear before the Investigating officer as and when called for and fully co-operate in the investigation of the case. (2) The accused-applicant shall not hamper the investigation nor tamper with any evidence or influence any witnesses connected with the case. 8. Accordingly, the instant bail application is disposed of as allowed. Case Diary so received to be sent back. JUDGE Comparing Assistant