Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010257602025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./3810/2025 SHYED AHMED LASKAR S/O BASIR UDDIN LASKAR @ BASIR LASKAR R/O BARJARENGA PT.VI (BASKHAL), P.S. DHOLAI, DIST. CACHAR, ASSAM, PIN-788114. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B CHAKRAVARTY, A SARMA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR ORDER 17.12.2025 Heard Mr. B. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. K. Parasar, learned Addl. P.P., Assam appearing for the State. This is an application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 praying for bail to the petitioner in connection with NDPS No.45/2025, arising out of Sonai P.S. Case No.30/2025 registered under Section 22(c) of the NDPS Page No.# 2/4 Act, 1985, pending in the Court of learned Special Judge, Cachar at Silchar. An FIR was registered on 23-4-2025 which culminated in Sonai PS Case No. 30 of 2025 under section 22(c) of the NDPS Act wherein it was stated that during a regular Naka checking the auto bearing Registration No.AS11DC-0297 was checked and beneath the driver seat wrapped in a polythene bag, 1064.92 grams of Yaba tablets were recovered which tested positive during the field testing done with the kit. The tablets were seized and the petitioner herein was arrested and has been since then in custody. The contrabands had been sent for forensic test and it was confirmed that they had the presence of methamphetamine as per report dated 07-05-2025. Charge sheet was submitted and charges framed accordingly. Mr. B. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that an earlier bail petition had been preferred before the learned trial court and the same was rejected by order dated 30-08- 2025. Mr. B. Chakraborty has submitted that the statements of six of the witnesses have been recorded till date and altogether there are 26 witnesses to be examined on behalf of the prosecution. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it would take a long time to record the statements of all the prosecution witnesses and therefore, the detention of the petitioner would be prolonged for no fault of his own. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the petitioner is a family person having wife, aged mother-in-law and two minor girl child. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the Page No.# 3/4 petitioner is ready to abide by any condition that may be imposed while on bail if bail is granted by this court. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that there is least possibility of the petitioner being held to be guilty in the aforementioned case and of being convicted. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is not connected with the offenses alleged. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been under custody for the last seven months and therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner may be granted the privilege of bail at this stage. The learned Addl. P.P. appearing in the matter has submitted that the recovery of the quantity of contraband is huge and there is no denying the fact that the contraband had been recovered from the auto rickshaw being driven by the petitioner here in. In fact, there is enough evidence and statement on record to show that the bag containing the contraband substances had been recovered from under the dickey of the seat on which the petitioner was sitting while driving the auto rickshaw. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that when the quantity of contraband recovered is of commercial quantity, the rigors of section 37 of the NDPS Act would come into play and in such circumstances, the petitioner in this present case does not deserve to be considered to be released on bail at this stage of the trial. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the contesting parties. We have also gone through the scan copy of the trial court records placed before us. The petitioner in the bail petition has not contested or disputed that the contraband substance had been Page No.# 4/4 recovered from the dickey under his seat where he was sitting while driving the auto rickshaw. The quantity of the contraband recovered has also not been disputed. The statements of the prosecution witnesses do not indicate that there is no chance of conviction of the petitioner. This is, however, a prima facie view since independent witnesses have identified the petitioner and has also stated that they were witnesses to the recovery. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, the reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the judgment and order dated 27-9-2022 passed in Bail Application No.2090 of 2022 and the judgment and order dated 1-12-2023 passed in Bail Application No.3887 of 2023 do not aid the case of the petitioner since in those cases the court had come to a conclusion that there was little or no chance to believe that the petitioner is guilty of any offence under section 29 of the NDPS Act. In the present case, however, the facts and circumstances are different in as much as in the aforesaid cases, the petitioners were arrested on the statements of their co-accused and in the present case, the contraband has been allegedly recovered from the dickey of the seat on which the petitioner was sitting and driving the auto. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, this court does not find this to be a fit case to grant the privilege of bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the bail petition is rejected at this stage. JUDGE Comparing Assistant