Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010276532025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/2938/2025 RIMU SARKAR S/O AHATAR HUSSAIN, R/O CHAMAIBIL, P.O. AND P.S. MANKACHAR, DIST. SOUTH SALMARA MANKACHAR, ASSAM, PIN 783131 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY PP, ASSAM. Advocate for the Petitioner : MR M A ISLAM, MS L DAS,MR J I MONDAL Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA ORDER 16.02.2026 Heard Mr. M.A. Islam, learned counsel for the accused/applicant. Also heard Mr. K.K. Parasar, learned APP for the State. 2. This application is filed under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023, praying that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to grant pre-arrest bail to the accused/applicant, namely, Rimu Sarkar, in connection with Mankachar P.S. Case No. 157/2025, registered under Sections 21(c) and 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985. Page No.# 2/3 3. The FIR in this case was lodged on 23.11.2025, alleging that on 22.11.2025, based on certain information received, the police conducted a naka checking. During the checking, a person named Manik Chand was apprehended with his two-wheeler, and upon search, the police allegedly recovered 20 bottles of cough syrup containing narcotic and psychotropic substances from his possession. On receipt of the FIR, the police registered Mankachar P.S. Case No. 157/2025 under Sections 21(c) and 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985. 4. The learned counsel for the accused/applicant submits that the accused/applicant, namely Rimu Sarkar, has been implicated in the FIR solely on the basis of statements made by the co-accused, Manik Chand. He further submits that immediately thereafter, the police conducted a search of the house of the accused/applicant, but nothing incriminating was recovered therefrom. The counsel relies on the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tuffan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2021) 4 SCC 1, wherein it was held that a person cannot be detained merely on the basis of the statement of a co-accused. In the absence of any substantive material linking the accused to the alleged offence, mere implication from the co-accused’s statements cannot be a ground for arrest. 5. In view of the aforesaid submissions, it is prayed that the accused/applicant, Rimu Sarkar, may be granted pre-arrest bail and allowed to go on bail, as there is no substantive material implicating him in the alleged offence. 6. On the other hand, the learned APP submits that in the instant case, the main accused, Manik Chand, upon his arrest, immediately uttered the name of Page No.# 3/3 the accused/applicant and thereafter escorted the police to the house of the accused/applicant. The learned APP, therefore, contends that the involvement of the accused/applicant in the alleged offence cannot be ruled out, and pre- arrest bail should not be granted. 7. This Court has heard the submissions of both parties and, after considering the facts of the case, as well as the judgments laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, is of the opinion that the accused/applicant, Rimu Sarkar, should be granted pre-arrest bail at this stage. 8. Accordingly, it is directed that in the event of the arrest of the accused/applicant, Rimu Sarkar, he shall be released on bail on furnishing a bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties of the like nature to the satisfaction of the arresting authority, subject to the following conditions: (i) The accused/applicant shall appear before the Investigating Officer within 7 days from the date of this order. (ii) The accused/applicant shall present himself before the Investigating Officer as and when required and shall surrender all relevant documents in his possession to the Investigating Officer. (iii) The accused/applicant shall not attempt to influence, intimidate, or tamper with any witness in any manner whatsoever. 9. Accordingly, the instant anticipatory bail application is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant