Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010280882025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./4103/2025 JAMIR UDDIN S/O LT. KALA MIA R/O VILL- MAHAKAL P.S. BADARPUR DIST. SRIBHUMI, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A AHMED, MISS. P M AHMED,MR A AHMED,U U KHAN,MR. M A CHOUDHURY Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA ORDER 18.02.2026 Heard Mr. A. Ahmed, learned counsel for the accused/applicant. Also heard Mr. R.G. Baruah, learned APP for the State. 2. This is an application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, praying for Page No.# 2/6 bail of the accused/applicant in connection with Special (NDPS) Case No.60/2025 arising out of Karimganj P.S. Case No.250/2025, registered under Section 21(c)/25/29 of NDPS Act, 1985. 3. An FIR was lodged on 21.05.2025 by WSI(P) Krishnamoni Kalita alleging, inter alia, that on the same day the police received secret information regarding transportation of a huge quantity of narcotic contraband in a vehicle bearing Registration No. AS-26 AC-0816 and that another truck bearing Registration No. AS-26 AC-0664 was escorting the said vehicle while proceeding from Badarpur to Patharkandi via Sribhumi Bypass. Acting upon the said information, the police conducted naka checking and intercepted both the vehicles. Upon search, the police allegedly recovered 1236.35 grams of heroin from the truck bearing Registration No. AS-26 AC-0816. However, no contraband substance or any other incriminating material was recovered from the other truck bearing Registration No. AS-26 AC-0664. On the basis of the said FIR, Karimganj P.S. Case No. 250/2025 was registered under Sections 21(c)/25/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 4. After completion of investigation, the Investigating Agency submitted charge-sheet, vide Charge-Sheet No. 372/2025 dated 11.11.2025 before the learned District & Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge (NDPS), Sribhumi, in connection with Karimganj P.S. Case No. 250/2025, under Sections 21(c)/25/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 5. Mr. A. Ahmed, learned counsel for the accused/applicant, submits that the accused/applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and he is in no way connected with the alleged offence of transportation of narcotic contraband. He submits that the accused/applicant was merely travelling in the truck bearing Registration No. AS-26 AC-0664, which was moving behind the Page No.# 3/6 other truck from which the alleged contraband was seized, and that no narcotic substance or any incriminating material was recovered from the vehicle of the accused/applicant. He further submits that even in the charge-sheet submitted in connection with the present case under Sections 21(c)/25/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, there is no specific allegation of conscious possession or transportation of any contraband by the accused/applicant, nor is there any independent material to establish his involvement in the alleged offence committed by the driver of the other truck bearing Registration No. AS-26 AC-0816. He further submits that the charge- sheet has been laid primarily on the basis of the statement of the co-accused, namely the driver of the truck bearing Registration No. AS-26 AC-0816, and the alleged confessional statement of the accused/applicant. It is contended that it is well settled by a catena of judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court that the confessional statement of an accused recorded by police, and the statement of a co-accused, cannot by themselves from the sole basis for implication, much less for denial of bail. 6. Mr. R.G. Baruah, learned APP for the State, on the other hand, submits that the knowledge of the accused/applicant regarding the transportation of narcotic contraband in the other truck cannot be ruled out at this stage. He contends that the prosecution case is consistent to the effect that two trucks were travelling together—one carrying narcotic drugs and the other following it —and, therefore, it can reasonably be inferred that the accused/applicant had knowledge of the transportation of contraband by the said truck. He further submits that sufficient materials are available in the case diary to link the accused/applicant with the offence as alleged in the FIR. Learned APP also submits that charges have already been framed in the instant case and Page No.# 4/6 therefore, at this stage, the accused/applicant should not to be enlarged on bail. 7. On perusal of the forwarding report dated 22.05.2025 as well as the Charge-Sheet No. 372/2025 dated 11.11.2025 submitted under Sections 21(c)/25/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, it appears that apart from the statement of the co-accused, namely Joynul Uddin @ Joynul Hussain, the driver of the truck from which the contraband was seized, and the alleged confessional statement of the accused/applicant, no other independent material has been brought on record to establish a nexus between the accused/applicant and the commission of the alleged offence as narrated in the FIR. Therefore, prima facie, the only link sought to be established between the accused/applicant and the said Joynul Uddin @ Joynul Hussain is the statement of the said co-accused and the alleged confessional statement of the accused/applicant. 8. Taking into account the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamilnadu, reported in (2021) 4 SCC 1, wherein it has been held that a confessional statement recorded by an officer under Sections 42 or 43 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 is not admissible in evidence and cannot form the sole basis for conviction under the said Act. The alleged confessional statement of the accused/applicant in the present case cannot, by itself, be treated as substantive evidence to establish the guilt. In view of the aforesaid settled position of law, when the only material sought to be relied upon by the prosecution is the statement of the co-accused and the alleged confessional statement of the accused/applicant, the same, at this stage, cannot be considered sufficient to deny the privilege of bail. 9. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tofan Singh (supra), it is now well settled that a confessional statement recorded by an Page No.# 5/6 officer under the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 is inadmissible in evidence and cannot be relied upon as substantive evidence during trial under the said Act. Therefore, such a confessional statement cannot form the sole basis either for conviction or for continued incarceration of the accused/applicant. 10. In view of the foregoing, it appears that, as of now, there is no admissible evidence on record against the present accused/applicant to justify his continued detention or to invoke the embargo under Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 against him. 11. In view of the above settled position of law and on perusal of the materials placed before this Court, it is considered that, in the absence of any prima facie admissible evidence on record against the accused/applicant, the arrest of the accused/applicant in the instant case is not sustainable under law. Accordingly, the accused/applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 12. In view of the aforesaid, prima facie, finding, this Court is of the considered opinion that the accused/applicant should be allowed to go on bail, on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge (NDPS), Sribhumi, subject to the following conditions: (i) that the accused/applicant shall cooperate in the trial of the Special (NDPS) Case No.60/2025 pending before the learned Special Judge (NDPS), Sribhumi; (ii) that the accused/applicant shall appear before the Trial Court as and when required by the Trial Court; (iii) that the accused/applicant shall not directly or indirectly Page No.# 6/6 make any inducement, threat or promise to any person, who may be acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade such person from disposing such facts before the Trial Court in the trial pending against the accused applicant; (iv) that the accused/applicant shall not leave the jurisdiction of learned Special Judge (NDPS), Sribhumi without permission of the Trial Court and when such leave is granted by the Trial Court, the accused/applicant shall submit this address and contact details to the Trial Court. 13. 13. In view of the aforesaid directions, the instant bail application is, accordingly, disposed of as allowed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant