Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010227232025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./3344/2025 FAIZUR RAHMAN S/O- AKRAM HUSSAIN, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BADLAPATHAR, PS NAGARBERA, DISTRICT KAMRUP, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : DR. B N GOGOI, S ISLAM Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER Date : 27.11.2025 1. Heard learned Counsel Dr.B. N.Gogoi for the petitioner Faizur Rahman who has filed this application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 with prayer for bail as he is behind bars since 12.12.2025 in connection with Special (NDPS) Case No.13/2025 arising out of Lakhipur PS Case No. 285/2024 under Sections 22 (C)/29 of the NDPS Act. Page No.# 2/3 2. It is submitted that the petitioner has been behind bars continuously since 12.12.2024. The exact composition is not clearly mentioned in the FSL report. If the exact composition of the contraband seized in connection with this case is considered, it may so happen that the petitioner may be booked under a lesser offence. It is further submitted that the petitioner is willing to cooperate with the trial. The petitioner's right to personal liberty has been curtailed as no grounds of arrest have been communicated to the petitioner. No independent witnesses have given the statements against the petitioner. 3. An additional affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioner that on perusal of the charge sheet, it could be deciphered that only 48 boxes and 12 loose strips (691 +288= 979 capsules) of Tramadol Hydrochloride, Dicyclomine Hydrochroride and Acetaminophen combination were seized. The same, as per the FSL and standard NDPS notification does not amount to commercial quantity of Tramadol, and therefore Section 37 of the NDPS Act shall not apply. It is further contended that the mandatory provisions of Sections 42,50 and 57 of the NDPS Act were not complied with and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to bail. 4. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. K.K. Das has laid stress in his argument that Tramadol is confirmed and 979 capsules amounts to commercial quantity and not intermediate quantity. The petitioner was caught red-handed while he was in possession of the contraband Tramadol amounting to 250 grams, which is commercial quantity. On presumption, the petitioner cannot be enlarged on bail as no specification of Tramadol was found. Charge sheet is already laid against the petitioner. 5. I have considered the submissions at the bar with circumspection. 6. I have also scrutinized the scanned copies of the trial court records. Page No.# 3/3 7. The weight of the capsules have not been mentioned in the search and seizure list. A total of 6912 + 285 is = 7200 of capsules were seized. The Forensic report reveals that Tramadol has been confirmed from the sample forwarded. The grounds of arrest have been communicated to the petitioner and the petitioner has received the notice under Section 47 of the BNSS and he has affixed his signature in English. Thus, it cannot be held that the grounds of arrest were not communicated to the petitioner. Notice under Section 48 BNSS was also issued to a relative of the petitioner who has received and accepted the notice and has affixed his signature in English. 8. On 25.09.2025, cognizance has been taken under section 61(2)/123 of the BNS r/w Section 22 ©/29 of the NDPS. The rigours under Section 37 of the NDPS Act comes into play. At this juncture, the petition with prayer for bail stands rejected with liberty to the petitioner to pray for bail subsequently if trial is procrastinated any further by the Court as well as by prosecution. 9. In terms of the above observation, the bail application stands rejected. Comparing Assistant JUDGE