Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010228812025 2025:GAU-AS:16963 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./3382/2025 GULAM MOHAMMED SON OF MD. RIYAJUDDIN RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MOIJING AWANG LEIKAI, MOIJING, PO THOUBAL, PS THOUBAL, DIST THOUBAL, STATE MANIPUR, PIN- 795138 VERSUS UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE STANDING COUNSEL, NCB Advocate for the Petitioner : MR D MEDHI, S YESMIN,MR. S SARKAR,MR K THAKUR Advocate for the Respondent : SC, NCB, BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR ORDER 08.12.2025 Heard Mr S Sarkar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Ms N Kakati, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr S C Keyal, learned Special Counsel, NCB. 2. This application has been filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, praying for granting of bail to the petitioner, namely, Gulam Mohammed, who is in custody since 25.09.2025, in connection with NCB Guwahati Crime No. 12 of 2025, under Section 9(c), read with Section 21(b) of the NDPS Act. Page No.# 2/4 3. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner was arrested on 25.09.2025 by the authorities of the Narcotics Control Bureau, Guwahati Zonal Unit at the Office of the Zonal Unit, pursuant to the recovery of 162 grams morphine from the petitioner when he was intercepted on the Platform No. 1, Guwahati Railway Station, Guwahati, Assam. Upon his arrest, the petitioner was provided with the grounds of arrest on the same date itself, which was in English language. He was produced before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (Metro), Guwahati, on 26.09.2025 and the wife of the petitioner was informed about his arrest on a specific mobile number on 25.09.2025 itself. The notice under Section 47 of the BNSS, 2023, given to the petitioner was in English and after the telephonic intimation to the wife of the petitioner by the petitioner about his arrest, the grounds of arrest had also been sent to the Mobile number which was given by the petitioner to be his wife’s number. Intimation has also been sent to the concerned Police Station of the residence of the petitioner informing them about the arrest with a request to inform the family of the petitioner herein, and the concerned Police Station had also informed the family of the petitioner. It was further informed that no adverse entries were found against the petitioner till the date of his arrest. The petitioner was produced before the learned remand magistrate on 26.09.2025, on which date, the Magistrate recorded that the accused person had informed the Magistrate that he was aware of the facts of the case for which he has been arrested. He further stated that the family members were also aware of the instant case and that they would engage counsel to defend their case. Accordingly, the learned Remand Magistrate remanded him to judicial custody till 08.10.2025, with directions for him to be produced before the Court of the learned Sessions/Special Judge, Kamrup (Metro) on the returnable date. The inventory of the seized articles was prepared in the Court of the learned Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate (S) No. 1, Kamrup (Metro), Guwahati. The charge sheet in the case has been submitted on 25.11.2025. Hence, this bail application. 4. Mr Sarkar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the Page No.# 3/4 accused petitioner was arrested on 25.09.2025 and has been languishing in jail since then. He has submitted that the quantity recovered from the accused is an intermediate quantity of morphine and since the investigation has already been completed, there is no scope for the petitioner to hamper or tamper with the evidence collected or to influence any of the witnesses. He has further submitted that the quantity being intermediate, the rigours of Section 37 will not be attracted and the petitioner undertakes to participate in the trial proceedings all throughout without any exception. He submits that in the event the petitioner is enlarged on bail, he would abide by all the conditions imposed upon him. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for extending the privilege of bail to the petitioner. 5. The learned Special Counsel, NCB has submitted that although the recovered amount is of intermediate quantity, a perusal of the scanned copies of the Trial Court Record would reveal all formalities relating to the search, seizure and arrest had been followed and the petitioner being a resident of Manipur, it may not be feasible to release the petitioner on bail, during trial. 6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the parties and I have also gone through the documents annexed with the record. 7. It is an undisputed fact that the recovered quantity falls under the intermediate quantity. Since the quantity involved is apparently intermediate, the stringent rigours and twin conditions mandated under Section 37 of the NDPS Act are not applicable to the present case, and the bail application is to be considered based on general principles under the BNSS, 2023. The investigation having been completed and evidence having been collected, the charge sheet has been submitted to the learned trial Court and accordingly, the case is proceeding. 8. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he was not provided with the grounds of arrest in writing in a language that he understands at any point of time merits consideration. Page No.# 4/4 9. The petitioner is not a resident of the jurisdiction of the Trial Court and, therefore, while granting bail, this Court has to balance the stringent condition of the NDPS Act, 1985, the right of the petitioner under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and also ensuring the participation of the petitioner in the trial proceedings. In the considered opinion of the Court, the balance can be achieved by directing the petitioner to be released on bail on executing a bail bond of such amount and such sureties as would be to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. The bail granted to the petitioner shall be further subject to following conditions:- i. the petitioner shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of the learned Trial Court, without prior written permission; iii. the petitioner shall not hamper and tamper with the investigation, or tamper with the evidence of the case; iv. the petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any Police Officer; v. the petitioner shall not try to contact any of the witnesses by any mode including telephone, social media etc. vi. the petitioner shall furnish the present residential address with proof to the learned Trial Court below and shall not change the said residence without prior permission of the learned trial Court; and vii. the petitioner shall appear before the learned Trial Court below on each and every date of appearance during trial. 10. In the aforesaid terms, this bail application is allowed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant